( 2025:JHHC:38714 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.3842 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3842 of 2023 Mithlesh Kumar Mishra, aged about 43 years, S/o. Sri Fekan Mishra, resident of Village & P.O. –Tantri, P.S. –Jaridih, District –Bokaro (Jharkhand). .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pramhans Dubey, S/o Late Bhagwanji Dubey, resident of Village – Vaikunthpur, P.O. –Machkama, P.S. –Hussainganj, District –Siwan (Bihar). Presently residing at Bata Gali, Phusro Bazar, P.O. & P.S. – Bermo, District –Bokaro (Jharkhand) …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate : Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1794 of 2018 including the order dated 05.12.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima –facie case against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2025:JHHC:38714 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.3842 of 2023 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a truck from the complainant for a total consideration amount of Rs.6,40,000/- and paid only Rs.60,000/- but did not pay the remaining amount. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph no. 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) submits that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must have the intention to deceive the victim since the very beginning of the transaction between them but if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. The State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 paragraph-13 of which reads as under:- “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up ( 2025:JHHC:38714 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.3842 of 2023 promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.” And submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent and dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are false and charge has not yet been framed in this case and trial is yet to begin. It is next submitted that the complainant by suppressing the previous agreement has realized Rs.60,000/- from the petitioner, hence otherwise also, the petitioner has not committed any offence. It is therefore, submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. ( 2025:JHHC:38714 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.3842 of 2023 7. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. 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 Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Another reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373, para-8 of which reads as under: - “8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus: “405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of ( 2025:JHHC:38714 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.3842 of 2023 trust’.” Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that where the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute, non-payment or under-payment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is allegation against the petitioner that he made underpayment of the price of the truck sold by the complainant to the petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties rather the petitioner paid Rs.60,000/- and admittedly the complainant has transferred the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1794 of 2018 including the order dated 05.12.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, ( 2025:JHHC:38714 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.3842 of 2023 Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima –facie case against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1794 of 2018 including the order dated 05.12.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima –facie case against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th December, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 03/01/2026