(2025:JHHC:38250) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2986 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2986 of 2019 ------ Shankar Prasad Saw, S/o Fani Bhushan Saw, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Gomoh Sick Line Colony, P.O. Gomoh, P.S. Hariharpur, District Dhanbad. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amjad Hussain, S/o Late Nurul Hoda, R/o village Gomoh, P.O. Gomoh, P.S. Hariharpur, District Dhanbad … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1484 of 2017 including the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in the said case, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad found sufficient materials to proceed inter alia against the petitioner for having (2025:JHHC:38250) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2986 of 2019 committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner assured the complainant to get one vehicle financed with the help of one Arnab Gorai, the Credit Manager of Shri Ram Transport Finance Company and the complainant on 07.12.2005 executed sale-deed No.10875 for a consideration amount of Rs.87,500/- and sold 8½ decimals of land to the petitioner but he was not given the tempo and though the petitioner got one tempo financed in the name of the complainant from the said company yet he did not give it to the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The said tempo was financed in the name of the complainant in the year 2009 and admittedly as mentioned in para-10 of the complaint, in Arbitration Case No.61 of 2016 award was passed in favour of the Shri Ram Transport Finance Company and the information about the award has been sent to the complainant and the co-accused has also filed a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide C.P. Case No.2537 of 2015 and after about eight years, this case has been falsely foisted just to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the land after paying the consideration amount. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nirmal Oraon vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:34403 wherein this Court relied upon (2025:JHHC:38250) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2986 of 2019 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) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent and dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties and to the same effect, is the judgment of 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 paragraph-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 (2025:JHHC:38250) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2986 of 2019 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) 7. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 8. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner, by playing deception, since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, led the gullible complainant to believe that upon executing the sale-deed of his land in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner will provide him with a tempo and in this fashion by deceiving the complainant, the petitioner in a dishonest and fraudulent manner induced him to part with his land but never gave the tempo to the complainant but got the tempo financed and made the complainant sign the relevant documents including postdated cheques; which ultimately resulted in a complaint case being instituted against the petitioner for dishonour of the cheques by the complainant; which has all the trappings of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is (2025:JHHC:38250) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2986 of 2019 pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and as part of that deception and deceit the petitioner by alluring complainant to provide a tempo; if he parts with his land by executing a sale-deed in respect of his land in favour of the petitioner. The complainant being so deceived, parted with his landed property by executing sale-deed of his property in favour of the petitioner on being dishonestly and fraudulently induced by the petitioner. But the petitioner never gave the tempo to the complainant as promised after deceiving and fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the complainant to part with his property. This, in the considered opinion of this Court is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in instant Cr.M.P., in exercise of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be acceded to. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 03/01/2026