( 2025:JHHC:31501 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 726 of 2024 ------- 1. Raman Kumar Srivastava, aged about 44 years, son of B.P. Srivastava, resident of Plot No. 716, Bari Co-operative, P.O. & P.S. Sector 12 Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro. 2. Vishal Utsaw, aged about 26 years, son of Raman Kumar Srivastava, resident of Plot No.716, Bari Cooperative, P.O. & P.S Sector 12 Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro. …... …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Superintendent of Police (S.P., Bokaro), P.O., P.S. & District Bokaro. 3. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Bokaro Steel City, P.O., P.S. & District Bokaro. 4. Officer-In-charge, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro. 5. Devendra kumar Pandey, son of Late Bhikhari Pandey, resident of Qtr. No.4-115, Street-7, Sector 11/C, P.O & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro. .…. …. Respondent(s) -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Abhishekh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate -------- 08/ Dated 07.10.2025 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the First Information Report of Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.53 of 2024, for the offence registered under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Sri B. C. Samad, learned J.M.F.C., Bokaro. 3. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are running their business in the name and style of Agro Chemical Works and Vishal Steel Traders. 4. The respondent No.5 had given Rs.61 Lakhs to the petitioners on various occasions for business purpose, out of which, Rs.15 Lakhs were returned. The petitioners did not return the remaining amount and accordingly, the present case has been instituted. It appears that the petitioners had issued two cheques for the payment of remaining amount, which were produced in the bank for encashment but the same was not encashed due to insufficient fund. It further appears that another complaint case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed, which was dismissed due to non-prosecution. 5. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even assuming the entire prosecution case to be true, no case under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code will be made out. It was further submitted that the matter is civil in nature and as such, if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it will cause great injustice to the petitioners. 6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have deliberately not returned the money and as such, the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code will be attracted. 7. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC), 726, in which, it has been held as follows: 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of "Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016. 8. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (2024) 12 Supreme Court Cases 483, in the case of Lalit Chaturvedy & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 8. Having gone through the complaint, which was registered as an FIR and the assertions made therein, it is quite clear that Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg's grievance is regarding failure of the appellants to pay the outstanding amount, in spite of Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg's repeated demands. Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg states that the supplies were made between the period 1-12-2015 and 6-8-2017. The appellants had made the payments from time to time of Rs 3,76,40,553 leaving a balance of Rs 1,92,91,358. 9. We will assume that the assertions made in the complaint are correct, but even then, a criminal offence under Section 420 read with Section 415 IPC is not established in the absence of deception by making false and misleading representation, dishonest concealment or any other act or omission, or inducement of the complainant to deliver any property at the time of the contract(s) being entered. The ingredients to allege the offence are neither stated nor can be inferred from the averments. A prayer is made to the police for recovery of money from the appellants. The police is to investigate the allegations which discloses a criminal act. Police does not have the power and authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money. 9. Prima facie, from the perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that this matter, relates to non-payment of loan amount. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature, as there is nothing to show that there was any intention of the petitioners to cheat the informant at the very inception of the contract. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, the First Information Report of Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.53/2024 is quashed. Accordingly, this application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) 07th October, 2025 BS/-