[2025:JHHC:33844 ] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1716 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1716 of 2023 1. India First Life Insurance Co. Ltd. At present, Having its office at 12th and 13th Floor, North [C] Wing, Tower 4, Nesco IT Park, Nesco Center, Western Express Highwat, PO & PS Goregaon (East), Dist- Mumbai- 400063, State Maharastra Though authorized representative Kundan Kumar, S/O Dilip Kumar Prasad aged about 37 years, R/o P&T Colony, QR No T7/3, Bardman Compound, PO & PS Lalpur, Dist Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 2. Kundan Kumar, S/O Dilip Kumar Prasad aged about 37 years., R/o P&T Colony, QR No T7/3, Bardman Compound, PO & PS Lalpur, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834001 ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Satya Narayan Agrawal, S/o Late Hari Narayan Agrawal, R/o Sector 12C Qr No. 2097, PO & PS-Sector 12, District Bokaro, Sector-12, Bokaro, Jharkhand and Permanent Residence at 416, Kadamtalla Near Sharma, Farnichar, Po & PS- Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Adv. For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mukesh 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 for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sector 12 P.S. case no. 115 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 / 34 of the IPC. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no. 2 being the Senior Business Development Manager of the petitioner no. 1, [2025:JHHC:33844 ] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1716 of 2023 sold an insurance policy, on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 insurance company, on the life of the wife of the informant and though the wife of the informant died on 17.09.2018 and the petitioner no. 2 assured the informant that the insurance amount will be paid to the informant soon but the co-accused persons, cheated the informant by deceiving and inducing him to part with Rs. 4,00,000/- to get his insurance claim settled but did not get the same settled. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners is false and there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing any deception since beginning of the transaction nor there is any allegation of any dishonest mis- appropriation of any property and in the absence of the same, neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is made out. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is next submitted that the insurance policy was purchased suppressing the fact that the deceased insured was suffering from Myeloid Leukemia before commencement of the policy, hence, the claim has been repudiated. 5. Relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of Managing Director, Bank of Baroda and Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2023:JHHC:11107, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of that case, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of Mr. Devendera Kumar Pathak vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2024:JHHC:21649, wherein in the facts and circumstances of that case, where the policy was repudiated on certain ground and there was alternative remedy available either to move before the District Consumer Forum or to file civil suit; the Co-ordinate Bench this Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2025:JHHC:33844 ] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1716 of 2023 of India in the case of Debashis Sinha & Ors. M/s R.N.R. Enterprises reported in (2023) 3 SCC 195, quashed the order taking cognizance. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., reported in (2018) 12 SCC 391 submits that in para 3 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the FIR, can be quashed in part, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the allegations are sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Section 406 of IPC and Section 420 of IPC, hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. 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 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)” that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the essential ingredient is that accused person must have played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, but if the intention to cheat developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. [2025:JHHC:33844 ] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1716 of 2023 10. Now coming 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, it is submitted that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. 11. So far as offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is concerned, the essential ingredient is that the accused must dishonestly mis-appropriate the entrusted property. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, hence, this court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC 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 entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sector 12 P.S. case no. 115 of 2021 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sector 12 P.S. case no. 115 of 2021 , is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 4th November, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 24/11/2025