[2025:JHHC:37803] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 3353 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3353 of 2023 Kumar Randhir Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Late Sri. Ranjit Singh, resident of Flat No- 103, Janki Garden, Air Port Road, P.O P.S:- Doranda, Dist:-Ranchi, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Babita Kumari, wife of Rahul Kumar, resident of behind Kali Mandir, Lower Chutia, P.O + P.S- Chutia, District- Ranchi ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv. For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl. 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 10.09.2021 passed in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case no. 247 of 2015 (S) corresponding to G.R. no. 5934 of 2015 (s) whereby and whereunder, learned JMFC, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of the IPC against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that that the co-accused- Arun Kumar approached the informant for financial help to purchase a vehicle in the name of the informant. The informant paid money to the co-accused Arun Kumar and the petitioner was with Arun Kumar at that time. Arun Kumar purchased a Bolero vehicle but did not give the account of the said vehicle nor he deposited the loan instalments of the said vehicle as promised [2025:JHHC:37803] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 3353 of 2023 by him. Later on, the informant came to know that Arun Kumar purchased the vehicle in the name of the petitioner; who is the friend of Arun Kumar but Arun Kumar still did not give the accounts of the vehicle to the informant and when the informant pressurized Arun Kumar to return her money, Arun Kumar wrote on a plain paper that he has given money as financial aid to the petitioner but did not pay back money to the informant. There was a quarrel between the informant and Arun Kumar in respect of paying back money of the informant by Arun Kumar and with the help of police, the informant who is also a police personnel herself, the Bolero vehicle was taken to the police Station. In the meantime, there was a talk of settlement between the informant and Arun Kumar. Arun Kumar paid some of the instalments but did not pay the entire instalments due and on the informant’s repeatedly asking Arun Kumar to pay back the money, Arun Kumar threatened the informant of dire consequences. It is lastly alleged that the petitioner and Arun Kumar have cheated the informant of Rs. 4,70,000/- for the purpose of dishonestly mis- appropriating the same. On the basis of the written report, police registered Lalpur P.S. Case no. 247 of 2015 (S) and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC and found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner and issued summons to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving or dishonestly or fraudulently inducing the informant to part with any property or money nor there is any allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has dishonestly mis-appropriated any entrusted property and there is no allegation of entrustment of any property against the petitioner. It is next submitted that all the allegations is against the co-accused Arun Kumar and the petitioner has no direct transaction with the informant, hence, neither the offence [2025:JHHC:37803] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 3353 of 2023 punishable under Section 406 nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC even with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is then submitted that thus continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the petitioner was present at the time of the complainant giving money to the co- accused Arun Kumar, so the petitioner is squarely responsible for the acts committed by Arun Kumar, more so, even the vehicle has undisputedly been purchased in the name of the petitioner, hence, both the offences punishable under Section 406 and Section 420 of IPC are made out against the petitioner, 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 the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC are as under :- (i) deceit i.e. dishonest or fraudulent mis-representation, (ii) inducing the person deceived, to part with property, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narain Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving the informant nor there is any allegation of fraudulent or dishonest misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of inducing the informant in any manner to part with any property or money and all the allegations are against the co- accused Arun Kumar. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations are [2025:JHHC:37803] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 3353 of 2023 considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. 8. So far as the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC are – (i) The accused must be entrusted with some property or with any dominion over property, (ii) He dishonestly misappropriates or dishonestly converts to his own use that property, or (iii) Dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract, or (iv) Wilfully suffers any other person to do so.” as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation (supra). 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of entrustment of any property by the informant to the petitioner rather it is the case of the informant that the vehicle though was purchased in the name of the petitioner, was in possession of Arun Kumar. Nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of the Bolero vehicle, as admittedly the Bolero vehicle is in the custody of police at Lalpur Police Station. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not made out. 10. In view of the discussions made above, as neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is made out against the petitioners, even with the aid of Section 34 of IPC, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case, [2025:JHHC:37803] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 3353 of 2023 where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 10.09.2021 passed in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case no. 247 of 2015 (S) corresponding to G.R. no. 5934 of 2015 (s), be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 10.09.2021 passed in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case no. 247 of 2015 (S) corresponding to G.R. no. 5934 of 2015 (s), is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 11th December, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 24.12.25