[ 2025:JHHC:33985] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2999 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2999 of 2021 1. Rabindra Prasad, Aged about 77 Years, S/O Late Munshi Parmeshwar Prasad, 2. Anand Kumar, Aged about 41 Years, S/O Sri Rabindra Prasad, Both are R/O Mohalla - Munshi Tola, Ward No. 7, P.S. -Sherghati, District- Gaya (Bihar), Pin Code - 824211. ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amarjit Kumar Sinha, Aged about 31 Years, S/O Sachchidanand Sinha, R/O Malviya Marg, Badam Bazar, P.O.,P.S. & District - Hazaribaghh. ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha , Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer to quash and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 03.03.2020 in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. case no. 336 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. no. 349 of 2020 of court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh consequent upon submission of the charge sheet, has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 took an advance of Rs. 51,000/- to sell his land to the informant but he neither returned the money nor sold the land to the informant. The petitioner no. 2 was signatory to the agreement entered into between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant as a [ 2025:JHHC:33985] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2999 of 2021 witness and he was exhorting the petitioner no. 1 not to return the money. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meanwhile, the petitioner no. 1 in terms of the order dated 14.03.2022 passed in ABA No. 1797 of 2022, by this court, has paid Rs. 51,000/- by way of Demand Draft to the informant. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and the allegations against the petitioners is false. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423 and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in the absence of any fraudulent and dishonest intention, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out and the mere wrong demand of claim, would not constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. 6. It is next submitted that there is no allegations against the petitioners of having played any deception since beginning of the transaction between the parties nor there is entrustment hence, neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is made out, even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submits that materials in the record are sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and 406 of IPC, 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 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 [ 2025:JHHC:33985] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2999 of 2021 Radheyshyam and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 2311, para 12 of which reads as under :- “12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sale between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out.” (Emphasis supplied) that the amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the vendor by the purchaser and merely because the accused persons are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, since the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners taken Rs. 51,000/- as advance against the total consideration amount of Rs. 19,50,000/- which undisputedly, has been returned by the petitioner no. 1 to the informant; though after institution of the case, cannot be treated as an entrustment and in the absence of any entrustment, the question of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property does not arise and in the absence of the same, even if entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not made out. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is considered, it is 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 No.6 of which reads as under :- 6. Xxxxx 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 [ 2025:JHHC:33985] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2999 of 2021 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 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. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since beginning of the transaction between the parties, hence, this court is of the conspired view that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC is not made out. 12. In view of discussions made above, since neither of the two offences is made out against any of the petitioners, hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 03.03.2020 in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. case no. 336 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. no. 349 of 2020 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 03.03.2020 in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. case no. 336 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. no. 349 of 2020, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 29th October, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 24/11/25