[2025:JHHC:37780] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2019 Dilip Kumar Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Badri Narayan Singh, R/o Ichrasole, PO & P.S Baharagora, District East Singhbhum ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dinesh Kumar Mandal, S/o Late Tarani Kumar Mandal, R/o Patpur, PO & PS-Baharagore, District - East Singhbhum ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Roy , Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy , Spl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. K.S. Nanda, 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 First Information Report and the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 21.08.2018 in connection with Baharagora P.S. case no. 55 of 2018 by which, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 of the IPC has been taken by learned SDJM, Ghatshila. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- showing the pressing need of his personal family expenses with the assurance that the petitioner would sell his land to the informant, on payment of the rest consideration amount but did not get the sale deed in respect of his land registered in favour of the informant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of Shyam Kishori Devi and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another dated 24.04.2024 in CrMP [2025:JHHC:37780] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2019 No. 2049 of 2022 that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360, paragraph-13 of which reads as under:- “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. Therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. 4. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety still the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 or 420 of the IPC is not made out, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the O.P.No. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the materials in the record is sufficient constitute each of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 of the [2025:JHHC:37780] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2019 IPC, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 Dalip Kaur and Others v. Jagnar Singh and Another, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, paragraph 10 of 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) wherein, it has been held that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused persons by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. 7. It is also a settled principle of law that 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. 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 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 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 will not amount to cheating. 8. It is also a settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratan Lal [2025:JHHC:37780] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2019 Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph 13 of which reads as under:- “13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” That mere inability of the accused person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken Rs. 3,00,000/- either as advance or as friendly loan for his personal family expenses. Either way, it cannot be said to be an entrustment and in the absence of any entrustment, the question of dishonest mis- appropriation of the entrusted property does not arise. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety still offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC is not made out. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 418 of IPC or 420 of IPC is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said two offences is cheating. As already indicated above, to constitute the offence of cheating, the sine qua non is that the accused person played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and in this case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations against the [2025:JHHC:37780] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2019 petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety still offence punishable either under Section 418 of IPC or 420 of IPC is not made out. 11. In view of the discussion made above, as none of the offences in respect of which, the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate is made out even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in its entirety, therefore, this is a fit case, where the First Information Report and the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 21.08.2018 in connection with Baharagora P.S. case no. 55 of 2018, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the First Information Report and the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 21.08.2018 in connection with Baharagora P.S. case no. 55 of 2018, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 27th November, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 18.12.2025