(2025:JHHC:38566) 1 Cr.M.P. No.616 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 616 of 2024 1. Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., represented through its Director Neelu Singh, aged 59 years, wife of Niraj Singh, Head Office at D-58/9, Sigra, P.O., P.S. & District –Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Also, office at A-16, Sector -6, P.O., P.S. & District –Noida, Uttar Pradesh, PIN-221301. 2. Neelu Singh, aged about 59 years, wife of Niraj Singh, presently residing/office at A-16, D Block, Sector-6, P.O., P.S. & District – Noida, Uttar Pradesh, PIN-221301. .... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Abhishek Traders, proprietor Abhishek Kumar, son of Bhola Prasad, residence of West Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, Ranchi, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties Cr.M.P. No. 620 of 2024 1. Pankaj Kumar Jha, aged about 32 years, Son of Amir Jha, presently residing/office at –A-16, D Block, Sector -6, P.O., P.S. & District – Noida, Uttar Pradesh, PIN-221301. 2. Mukesh Singh, aged about 57 years, Son of Achhe Lal Singh, presently residing at Subarno Colony, Near Sanjay Furniture, Village-Sirom, Indira Gandhi Chowk, P.O. & P.S. –Chutia, District – Ranchi, PIN-834001, Jharkhand. .... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Abhishek Traders, proprietor Abhishek Kumar, son of Bhola Prasad, residence of West Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, Ranchi, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T (2025:JHHC:38566) 2 Cr.M.P. No.616 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2024 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ayush Kr. Verma, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. Since both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed with the selfsame prayer hence, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 5504 of 2023 including the order taking cognizance dated 23.08.2023 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class –XXVI, Ranchi has found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the complainant was supplying materials to the petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 616 of 2024 on being told by the petitioner no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 616 of 2024 and petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 620 of 2024 since the year 2014 and after a long commercial transaction, an amount of Rs.14,62,034/- became payable to the complainant, which the petitioners are not paying. (2025:JHHC:38566) 3 Cr.M.P. No.616 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2024 5. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class –XXVI, Ranchi vide order dated 23.08.2023 found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code as already indicated above. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of this Court dated 03.07.2024, in the case of Pramod Bharat Sarawale @ Pramod Bharat Sarwale Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 2606 of 2023 wherein this Court relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360, para-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 (2025:JHHC:38566) 4 Cr.M.P. No.616 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2024 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 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 the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. 7. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the Judgment of this Court dated 14.08.2023 in the case of Yogesh Beriwal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., in Cr.M.P. No. 4402 of 2022. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that admittedly the petitioners were having commercial transaction for 9 to 11 years. The allegations against the petitioners are false and this criminal case has been instituted for wreaking vengeance and the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and with a fabricated allegation, this case has been instituted. It is then submitted that even though the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in these criminal miscellaneous petitions be allowed. (2025:JHHC:38566) 5 Cr.M.P. No.616 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2024 8. The learned Addl. P.Ps. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in these criminal miscellaneous petitions and submits that there is allegation against the petitioners that they had the intention to cheat the complainant for causing wrongful loss to him since the beginning, therefore the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the 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 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) (2025:JHHC:38566) 6 Cr.M.P. No.616 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2024 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. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the complainant that there was commercial relationship for a period of 9 to 11 years between the parties and during all these 9 to 11 years, the petitioners have been paying the dues of the complainant and after that they are not paying the amount of Rs.14,62,034/-. 11. From these admitted facts, this Court has no hesitation in holding that this is not a case, where the petitioners played the deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, hence even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 5504 of 2023 including the order taking cognizance 23.08.2023 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class –XXVI, Ranchi has found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed (2025:JHHC:38566) 7 Cr.M.P. No.616 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2024 the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 5504 of 2023 including the order taking cognizance 23.08.2023 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class –XXVI, Ranchi has found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. 14. In the result, these criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd December, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 03/01/2026