2025: JHHC:10205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 264 of 2020 Lalan Prasad Roy, aged about 54 years, son of Late Ram Padarath Singh, R/o 310, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro, P.O and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. M/s Bhalotia & Company represented through its Partner Shree Lalit Bhalotia, son of R.J. Bhalotia, R/o Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.O & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro --- --- Opp. Parties --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2: Ms. Tanu Kumari, Amicus Curiae --- 06 / 03.04.2025 Petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 612 of 2019 including order taking cognizance dated 08.07.2019, whereby and wherein, Sri Julian A. Toppo, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro has found the prima facie case to be true against the petitioner for the offence under section 403 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the opposite party no. 2 is that he runs a business under the name and style of M/s Bhalotia & Company and the petitioner who is a contractor, took PVC flooring (laminates) from the opposite party no. 2 for supply in BIT, Sindri. It is alleged that the petitioner has not paid Rs. 6,45,168.29 to the complainant. 3. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the present case is of civil nature and the petitioner has paid Rs. 9.50 lakh to the complainant. It was further submitted that there was no due to be paid to the complainant / opposite party no. 2.. 4. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika versus State of Bihar and Another [(2005) 10 SCC 336, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph-6, which reads as under: “6. Xxxxx 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. 2. 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) 5. Ms. Tanu Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae, has assisted this court on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and submitted that entire conduct of the petitioner shows that he has misappropriated the remaining amount which was to be paid to the opposite party no. 2. 6. From the facts of the case, it transpires that after the complainant had supplied PVC Flooring (Laminates) to the petitioner, petitioner has paid Rs. 9.50 lakhs to him. Opposite party no. 2 is claiming that Rs. 6,45,168.29 is still due to him which the petitioner is refusing to pay. 7. It is apparent from the facts of the case that there was no element of cheating at the time when the parties had entered into the contract. Claim of the O.P. No. 2 with regard to the payment of the remaining amount is being disputed by the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the entire criminal proceedings of C.P. Case No. 612 of 2019 including order taking cognizance dated 08.07.2019 are quashed. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 8. Before parting, I would like to record my appreciation to Ms. Tanu Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this court during course of hearing of this application. The Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- as remuneration to Ms. Tanu Kumari for her services rendered in this case. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded