(2025:JHHC:36654) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1869 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1869 of 2023 Rahul Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Yogendra Tripathi, resident of MIG B/94, Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Parsuram Chauhan, son of late Etwary Chauhan, resident of Bastakola, P.O. & P.S.-Jharia, Dist.-Dhanbad …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in- spite of repeated calls. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2023 whereby and where under, the learned revisional court has set aside the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in MCA No. 1330 of 2019 in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 645 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 4014 of 2016. (2025:JHHC:36654) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1869 of 2023 4. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 took loan of Rs.7,01,000/- from the petitioner for his necessary work after gaining confidence of the petitioner that he being a government servant will return the same. Subsequently, the opposite party no.2 issued cheques which were dishonoured upon being presented in the bank. 5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 645 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 4014 of 2016 and took up investigation of the case. After investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet and basing upon which, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad took cognizance of the offences as already mentioned above. 6. On 29.11.2022 the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad took up petition filed by the accused person of the case dated 30.01.2019 for discharge but the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad found that there is sufficient material in the record to constitute the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and rejected the petition. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the opposite party no.2 of the case filed Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2023. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed (2025:JHHC:36654) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1869 of 2023 the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating and in the absence of any merit to show that opposite party no.2 had any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of taking the money, held that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and in the absence of any record to show entrustment of any property to the opposite party no.2 and dishonest misappropriation thereof went on to hold that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out and set aside the order dated 29.11.2022. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad without considering the materials in the record in their correct perspective has illegally quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 Uma (2025:JHHC:36654) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1869 of 2023 Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph No.6 of which reads as under :- “6. Xxxxx 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) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused person must have played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 11. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph No.11 of which reads as under:- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, (2025:JHHC:36654) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1869 of 2023 ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment. 13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of IPC. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner did not return the loan amount taken by him. There is no allegation that the petitioner played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. There is no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of the property. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has not committed any illegality for coming to the conclusion that even if (2025:JHHC:36654) 6 Cr.M.P. No.1869 of 2023 the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, it their entirety, still, neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 14. Hence, there is no justifiable reason for this Court to interfere with the said order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2023. 15. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 6th December, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 16/12/2025