( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 307 of 2022 Shahsi Prakash @ Shashi Prakash, aged about 45 years, sex –male, Son of Late Murli Dhar Chaudhary, resident of Qr. No. B-1303, Sector -2, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagannathpur, District –Ranchi, Aadhar No. 4029 3733 2663, Phone No. 8294990581. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Julfan Ansari, Managing Director, Melody Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Son of Sri Islam Ansari, resident of Vill –Nayasarai, Murma, P.O. & P.S. – Nagri, District –Ranchi. Office at –Uni Hight Building, Kantatoli Chowk, Hazaribagh Road, P.S. –Lower Bazar, District –Ranchi. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Nipun Kr. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Md. Razaullah Ansari, 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 Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 119 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2690 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi. ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons approached the complainant to purchase their land, took advance, sold land worth Rs.32,40,000/- but neither returned the remaining advance amount out of the total advance amount of Rs.71,16,500/- nor sold the land to the complainant rather they sold the land at a higher price to others. The informant filed Complaint Case No. 369 of 2013 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi though the said complaint was not supported by any affidavit, the same was referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and as yet final report has not yet been submitted. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, para -30 & 31 of which reads as under:- “30.In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. 31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” that since the complaint did not spell out of approaching the Superintendent of the Police by the complainant nor the necessary document of approaching the police has been filed and in the absence of any affidavit in support of the complaint, the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by referring the complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. to the police for registration of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Urmila Devi & Others Vs. Balram & Another, reported in 2025 INSC 915 and submits that in that Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami V. State of Uttaranchal, reported in ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 (2007) 12 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Associate Engineers and Automotive Company and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in 2024 (3) JLJR 176 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663, paragraph-18 of which reads as under :- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused persons but must also be shown that the accused ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 persons dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Lakhotia and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, in Cr.M.P. No. 3095 of 2021 dated 26.04.2024 wherein this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124, paragraph nos. 28 and 38 of which reads as under:- “28. “Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, “in any manner entrusted with property”. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of “trust”. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code. 38. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as held by this Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint filed by Respondent 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants.” and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence. 8. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of of Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused person by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute an offence of cheating, by observing thus in para-10 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) 9. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, this Court also relied upon the Judgment of 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) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 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. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner then relies upon the Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arjun Rai and Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others, in Cr.M.P. No. 474 of 2021 dated 15.02.2023 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. V. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the power of the Magistrate to discharge the accused at any stage of a trial, if the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless, will not debar an accused to approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relies upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar Barnwal and Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others, in Cr.M.P. No. 1472 of 2022 dated 21.11.2024 wherein this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited and Others V. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Another, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 776 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 8 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 settled principle of law that breach of contract simpliciter does not constitute any offence. 12. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are false. It is further submitted that there is breach of the contract from the side of the informant also. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to annexure-3 which is the copy of the certified copy of the deposition of the informant –Julfan Ansari-informant in another case bearing G.R. Case No. 186 of 2013 that in para-43 of the said deposition, the informant stated that on 29.07.2019 that he has purchased 11 acres of land by registered sale deed from the co-accused –Shakti Mahto, which is contrary to the case of the complainant made in this case. It is next submitted that there is absolutely no allegation of any forgery committed by the petitioner nor is there any allegation of causing hurt to anyone, therefore, none of the offences punishable under Section 467/468/471/323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 13. 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 against the petitioner in their entirety is sufficient to constitute the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered. Hence, it is submitted that ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 9 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 this criminal miscellaneous petitioner being without any merit be dismissed. 14. 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 reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 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 Sell 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 mere non-refunding of the advance amount or not executing the registered sale deed consequent upon an agreement for sale, will not amount to the dishonest misappropriation of the property. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 10 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) the essential ingredient is that the accused person played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 17. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 18. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute each of those offences are forgery i.e. for which creation of false document is a sine-qua-none. 19. Now coming to the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of creating any false document and in the absence of any allegation of forgery, none of the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 20. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 11 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 the petitioner of causing hurt to anyone and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 21. Considering the aforesaid facts and since none of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegation made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, besides the anomaly in referring the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., without the complainant being supported by an affidavit and there is no material in the record to suggest that the complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, complaining non-registration of the First Information Report, in view of the principle of law as discussed above in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra), and the fact that the investigation of the case is still going on, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 119 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2690 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 22. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 119 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2690 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under ( 2025:JHHC:31243 ) 12 Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2022 Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 23. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-