[2025:JHHC:13951] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2651 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2651 of 2022 ------ Rakesh Ranjan, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Shyam Narayan, resident of Kishore Printing Press Building, Old Argora Road, P.O.- Doranda, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Tapas Kr. Mallick, S/o Jamini Ranjan Mallick, resident of Sri Ram Garden, Flat No.3 to 4, 7th Floor, C Block, Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi GPO, P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar,Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate ------ 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash/set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. Case No.331 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3713 of 2021 including the order dated 20.12.2021 in which case cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XIII, Ranchi of the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner approached the informant to part with money by deceiving him. For parting with such money, [2025:JHHC:13951] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2651 of 2022 the petitioner deceived the environment by falsely promising the informant that the petitioner will provide six flats in an apartment to the informant at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per flat and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the informant by executing an agreement for purchase of six flats by the informant. During the process of deceiving the informant, the petitioner informed the informant that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with a land owner and shared the details of the same with the informant and such type of cheating was committed by the petitioner with several other persons also but the petitioner ultimately cheated and committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the property entrusted by the informant to the tune of Rs.83,30,000/- and all amounts paid by the other victims of the act of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Police after conducting the investigation found the allegation against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XIII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 20.12.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s Srijan Buildcon and he entered into development agreement with the land owner and the construction of the building was in process. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that this is a case of simple breach of agreement being the consumer dispute and civil dispute and cloak of criminal case has been given to the mere civil dispute to arm twist the petitioner. It is next submitted that none of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code which has been defined in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code or 420, the [2025:JHHC:13951] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2651 of 2022 ingredients of which is mentioned in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner; even after the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. It is next submitted that the land owners have revoked the registered Power of Attorney granted in furtherance of development agreement; without any notice to the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has filed Original Suit (Title) No.312 of 2020 in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ranchi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mitesh Kumar J Sha vs. The State of Karnataka & Others passed in Criminal Appeal No.1285 of 2021 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9871 of 2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. 6. It is next submitted that in that case; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also relied upon its own judgment in the case of Randheer Singh vs. The State of U.P. & Others wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that [2025:JHHC:13951] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2651 of 2022 there can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and also reiterated the settled principle of law wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Gope @ Laxmi Gope vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.4742 of 2022 dated 28th February, 2024 wherein in the facts of that case, the accused persons took the property of the complainant for the failure on the part of the complainant to pay the consideration amount for over a period of 15 years after payment of the part of the consideration amount. This Court in the facts of that case quashed the entire criminal proceeding. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rana Chakraborty vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.962 of 2023 dated 20th March, 2024 wherein in the facts of that case where the accused was permanent employee of the Indian Railways and the complainant was working as a paid contractor and when the accused persons of the case stopped payment of bill of the complainant relating to some work done by him and forced him to do the work of co-accused, this Court in the facts of that case also quashed the entire criminal proceeding. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 9. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner [2025:JHHC:13951] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2651 of 2022 and submits that the ratio of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case as in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider inability of a person to perform, part of the contract. It is next submitted that in this case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that since the beginning, the petitioner was aware about the fact that he cannot complete the construction of the apartment and he had no bonafide intention for construction of the same and knowing pretty well the same, by suppressing the material facts, has induced the complainant and other persons whom he has cheated several crores of rupees by deceiving them to part with money with the assurance that he will give them the flats but he having not done so; but instead having dishonestly misappropriated the money entrusted to him; both the offences punishable under Section 420 as well as Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this nascent stage, particularly when the offence involved is an economic offence concerning several crores of rupees; which amount of money the petitioner, defrauded of the informant and several other persons. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully 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 Dinesh Sharma vs. Emgee Kables and Publication Limited & Another reported in 2025 INSC 571, para-23 of which reads as under:- [2025:JHHC:13951] 6 Cr. M.P. No.2651 of 2022 “23. A profitable reference can be made to the case of Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujrat and Anr wherein it was observed that economic offences by their very nature lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between private parties and the High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. Thus, it can be concluded that economic offences by their very nature stand on a different footing than other offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a class apart. Economic offences affect the economy of the country as a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the confidence and trust of the public will be shaken.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein referring to the judgment in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 wherein it was observed that economic offences by their very nature lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between private parties and the High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. Thus, it can be concluded that economic offences by their very nature stand on a different footing than other offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a class apart. Economic offences affect the economy of the country as a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the confidence and trust of the public will be shaken. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of defrauding several innocent gullible investors of several crores of rupees, including the informant, who has undisputedly paid Rs.83,30,000/- to the petitioner, with the promise made by the petitioner, of handing over them the constructed flats within stipulated time. Though the [2025:JHHC:13951] 7 Cr. M.P. No.2651 of 2022 time period by which the flats are to be supplied and handed over to him has been elapsed but the petitioner neither returned the money nor given flats to him. There is allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had intention of cheating since the beginning but kept the informant and other victims in dark. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be quashed; keeping in view of direct and specific allegation against him of defrauding the informant and other gullible investors of several crores of rupees more so because, if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 13. Because of the discussions made above, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th of April, 2025 AFR/ Saroj