(2025:JHHC:32590) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1400 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1400 of 2023 ------ 1. Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, S/o Late Niranjan Prasad Shukla, aged 64 years, Resident of Flat No.11, Sushobhita Apartment, Kilburn Colony, P.O. + P.S.- Doranda, Ranchi-834002 2. Sri Sukhdev Pradhan, S/o Late Sukh Narayan Pradhan aged about 78 years, R/o House No.42/124 SET, Namkum Road, P.S.- Doranda, Ranchi-834002 … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunil Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Devendra Chandra Gupta aged about 59 years, R/o House No.623 Harmu Road, Opposite Harit Bhawan, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Viveka Nand Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls though the opposite party No.2 has put in his appearance through his lawyer. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.4568 of 2019 in which vide order dated 10.06.2022, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found sufficient (2025:JHHC:32590) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1400 of 2023 materials to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners received Rs.2,51,550/- for selling a land to the complainant but they did not enter into any agreement and later on demanded Rs.1,50,000/- more on the ground that the price of the land has been increased and they also demanded the same by cash. The petitioners had given a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found sufficient materials for proceeding against the petitioners, as already indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the Secretary of the Green Wood Co-Operative Housing Society and the petitioner No.2 is the Accountant of the said Society. It is further submitted that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands, by concealing the material information that the complainant has already received Rs.2,50,000/-, besides Rs.1,57,300/- towards interest at the rate of 12% and the booking amount has already been refunded. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties nor is there any allegation against them of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. Hence, neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the (2025:JHHC:32590) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1400 of 2023 petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioners in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offences in respect of which sufficient materials have been found by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 paragraph-10 of which reads as under:- “10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )” (emphasis supplied) that if the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute resulting from the breach of contract on the part of the accused persons by non- refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating. (2025:JHHC:32590) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1400 of 2023 8. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:- “6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and in the absence of the same even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioners is that they received some advance for selling a property. The same cannot be treated as entrustment and in the absence of any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable (2025:JHHC:32590) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1400 of 2023 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 11. In view of the discussions made above as neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.4568 of 2019 in which vide order dated 10.06.2022, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.4568 of 2019 in which vide order dated 10.06.2022, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 13. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th of October, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 03/11 /2025