[2025:JHHC:33697] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1679 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1679 of 2022 ------ Raj Prakash, aged about 43 years, son of Kamli Kunj, Sahyogi Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Charlotte Crabbe, w/o Mr. Patrick Crabbe, resident of House no. 196, Smart City, Road no. 06, Karmatand, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, 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 the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No.2671 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the summoning order against the petitioner. [2025:JHHC:33697] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1679 of 2022 3. The brief fact of the case is that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner constructed a simplex (a single storied house) for the complainant. As per the agreement, the petitioner was to make a construction of 1300 sq. feet but he constructed simplex of 1076 sq. feet only and also did not make available the facilities which he was supposed to provide under the agreement. The complainant has paid Rs.16,25,000/- to the petitioner. The complainant tried to talk to the petitioner on several occasions in this respect but he did not listen the complainant. The complainant, thereafter, sent legal notice but as the petitioner did not respond to the same; hence, the complainant filed this complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case against the petitioner of the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, the complainant also lodged an FIR; basing upon which, Govindpur P.S. Case No.50 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3100 of 2021 of the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, was registered but this Court vide its judgment dated 15.05.2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No.336 of 2023, quashed and set aside the said FIR. 5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court vide its judgment dated 15.05.2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No.336 of 2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gunjan Koushik vs. The State of Jharkhand & [2025:JHHC:33697] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1679 of 2022 Anr. passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2050 of 2022 dated 23.11.2023 wherein, in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, paragraph No.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) and submits that like that case, in this case also, the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute resulting from breach of contract by making construction of an area less than what was to be constructed by the petitioner. 6. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case also, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124, paragraph No. 24 and 25 of which reads as under:- “24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. 25. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This [2025:JHHC:33697] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1679 of 2022 Court in Indian Oil Corpn. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further observed that : (Indian Oil Corpn. case [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , SCC p. 749, para 13) “13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” and submits that in that case it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad ought to have observed a great deal of caution in issuing the process against the petitioner. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of 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. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 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) and submits that like that case, in this case also, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he played deception at the very inception; rather the admitted case of the complainant is that the petitioner has delivered a simplex house of an area of 1076 sq. feet [2025:JHHC:33697] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1679 of 2022 hence, even if the allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true, still, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has constructed more than 100 houses and duplex in the said colony and none of the owners has made any complaint or raised any grievance. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation that the intentional insult, if any, was of such a nature which could have provoked any person to break public peace or to commit any other offence. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner that the threatening given by the petitioner was with intent to cause alarm to anybody or to make anybody to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 9. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of cheating and committing criminal breach of trust. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. [2025:JHHC:33697] 6 Cr. M.P. No.1679 of 2022 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, one of the essential ingredients is that the accused must have the intention to deceive the victim since the beginning of the transaction between them. If the intent to cheat develops later on, the same cannot amount to cheating as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra). 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of having played any deception upon the complainant or anybody else since the beginning; rather the admitted fact of the case, as set out by the complainant, goes to show that though there was an agreement for construction of the larger area but a house of shorter area has been delivered to the complainant by the petitioner, which obviously goes to show that the petitioner did not have any intention to deceive the complainant since the beginning, otherwise there was no reason for him to deliver even the house of a shorter area to the complainant. So, in the absence of any allegation of any deception having been played by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that in order to [2025:JHHC:33697] 7 Cr. M.P. No.1679 of 2022 constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish that the accused person has dishonestly misappropriated the entrusted property as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 para-18 of which reads as under :- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of committing dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. In the absence of that, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the same is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. In view of the discussions made above, as neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out [2025:JHHC:33697] 8 Cr. M.P. No.1679 of 2022 against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, 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 where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No.2671 of 2019 be quashed and set aside. 15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No.2671 of 2019 is quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 17. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 08.07.2022 is vacated. 18. The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 20/11/2025