( 2025:JHHC:38710 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.558 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 558 of 2024 Shirshendu Maity, aged about 52 years, S/o Panchanan Maity, resident of Choubey Niwas, Amla Tola, P.O. –Chaibasa, P.S. –Sadar, District – West Singhbhum. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vijay Kumar, S/o Kamal Kant Jha, resident of H. No. 207, Sushma Enclave, E-Road, West Sonari, P.O.+P.S. –Sonari, Town – Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 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 order dated 16.09.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 2256 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took a friendly loan of Rs.16,00,000/- from the complainant but did not ( 2025:JHHC:38710 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.558 of 2024 pay back the same and upon repeated demands, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.16,00,000/- which was dishonoured. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offences as already indicated above. 4. Relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Shamim Ahmad Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2024:JHHC:38249 it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that therein this Court relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of of Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, para -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) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused person by non-refunding the amount of ( 2025:JHHC:38710 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.558 of 2024 advance, the same would not constitute an offence of cheating and similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is next 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) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must have the intention to deceive the victim since the very beginning of the transaction between them but if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 6. 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 Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663, paragraph-18 of which reads as under :- ( 2025:JHHC:38710 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.558 of 2024 “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) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused persons but must also be shown that the accused person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioners are false and the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is then submitted that a complaint case has already been instituted against the petitioner for dishonour of the cheque. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are ( 2025:JHHC:38710 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.558 of 2024 sufficient enough to constitute both the offences punishable under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. 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 the undisputed fact remains that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. In the absence of the same, in view of the settled principle of law as already discussed above in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property and loan taken by a person certainly cannot be termed as entrusted, as the word ‘entrusted ‘ used in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that even if allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. ( 2025:JHHC:38710 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.558 of 2024 11. Since neither the offence punishable under Section 420 nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, hence this Court is of the considered view that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 16.09.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 2256 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 16.09.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 2256 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th December, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 03/01/2026