[2025:JHHC:34518] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2804 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2804 of 2022 Ranjit Singh, aged about 42 yrs S/o Late Shankar Dayal Singh, R/o Vill. Behind Metro Market, Flat No.2/2, Rishav Apartment, Kutchery, PO GPO., P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Paresh Ghosal, S/o Hari Mohan Ghosal, R/o M/s Siddhi Vinayak Infratech Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Pathal Kudwa, P.O. & P.S. Lower Bazar, Dist. Ranchi. ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahilesh Kr. Singh , Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. PP 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 as well as the order dated 28.01.2022 in connection with Kotwali P.S. case no. 161 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 374 of 2022 whereby and where under, learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 120B of the IPC inter alia against the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the father of the petitioner entered into a development agreement on taking certain amount of money with the complainant –informant and on 23.02.2011, the father of the petitioner expired. The mother of the petitioner entered into supplementary agreement with the complainant, with respect to the said property and the petitioner put his signature as a witness in the agreement entered into by his mother with the complainant and received Rs. 5 lakhs jointly with his mother for ensuring [2025:JHHC:34518] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2804 of 2022 vacation of the tenants from the property. There is further allegation that the petitioner entered into a separate development agreement with his mother in toe with the Co-accused being the accused no. 3 of the complaint; wherein it was mentioned that there was no existing agreement regarding development of the said property but he has not vacated the tenant. The complainant filed the complaint case no. 4376 of 2020 in the court of learned CJM, Ranchi which upon being referred to the police under Section 156(3) of CrPC, Kotwali P.S. case no. 161 of 2020 has been registered and the police after investigation of the case, submitted the charge sheet basing upon which the cognizance of the offence has been taken by the CJM, Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety still neither the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC nor the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC is made out; as there is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving or dishonestly inducing the complainant or anyone else so deceived to part with any property or to do any act which he ought not have done. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property and failure to perform a duty for which the petitioner receives certain amount cannot amount to cheating. 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 opp. party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has cheated his co-accused who has been arrayed as accused no. 3 in the complaint, by making a false statement in the registered development agreement entered into with him by mentioning that there is no existing agreement regarding development of the property in question. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. [2025:JHHC:34518] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2804 of 2022 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 reiterated 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) That when the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from breach of contract on the part of the accused person upon non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating and similar is the legal position in respect of the offence of criminal breach of trust. 7. Now, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has not entered into agreement with the complainant but is only a witness to an agreement entered into by his mother with the complainant and in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, it is the accused no. 3 of the complaint, who can institute a case against the petitioner, for having cheated him but certainly the complainant being a third person to the development agreement entered into between the petitioner and the co-accused no. 3 of the complaint, has no right to set the criminal law in motion against the petitioner, as the petitioner has not entered into any agreement with the complainant, so it cannot be said that the petitioner played deception since the beginning of the transaction between parties; which is a sine qua non to constitute [2025:JHHC:34518] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2804 of 2022 the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, para 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) Further, in the absence of any allegation of dishonest misappropriation against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not made out nor in view of the discussions made above, this court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has not committed any offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. 8. Because of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which, learned CJM, Ranchi has taken cognizance is made out against the petitioner, therefore, this court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 28.01.2022 in connection with Kotwali P.S. case no. 161 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 374 of 2022 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 28.01.2022 in connection with Kotwali P.S. case no. 161 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 374 of 2022, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 11th November, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 24 /11/ 2025