(2025:JHHC:16468) 1 Cr. M.P. No.299 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.299 of 2025 ------ Prakash Singh, S/o Narendar Singh, aged about 45 years R/o Near Chuna Bhatta, Bandgari, Dipatoli, PO- Bariatu, PS- Sadar, District- Ranchi … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ranjit Singh S/o Late Lal Vijan Singh, R/o Village Hambai, BIT More, P.O. & P.S. Mesra, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly 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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. being Sadar (Mesra OP) P.S. Case No.564 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318 (2), 319 (2), 336 (2), 338, 340 (2), 61 (2) (a) of the B.N.S., 2023. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the co-accused Shailendra Rai, entered into an agreement with the informant to sell 94.09 decimals of land out of which 86 decimals of land has been mortgaged to co-accused for Rs.1,32,48,000/-. The further allegation is that subsequently the co-accused (2025:JHHC:16468) 2 Cr. M.P. No.299 of 2025 Shailendra Rai executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of power of attorney, the petitioner illegally and forcibly occupied the land in question and attempted to construct boundary wall over there. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeetendra Tibrewal vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.173 of 2025 dated 06th March, 2025 and submits that in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in para-18 which reads as under:- Section 420 IPC 18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.” and submits that in the absence of any allegation of cheating anybody and thereby dishonestly inducing anybody to part with any property, the offence punishable under Section 318 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out. 6. It is next submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of being entrusted with any property, the offence punishable under Section 316 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out. (2025:JHHC:16468) 3 Cr. M.P. No.299 of 2025 7. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner that he has impersonated for someone else, the offence punishable under Section 319 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 336 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of creating any false document and in the absence of the same, neither the offence punishable under Section 336 (2) nor the offence punishable under Section 338 or 340 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that as none of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner being made out, the continuation of the F.I.R against the petitioner, will amount to abuse of process of law. 9. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation against the petitioner of dishonestly or fraudulently inducing anybody to part with any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 318 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner. In the absence of any entrustment of any property to the petitioner and dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, the offence punishable under Section 316 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner. In the absence of any allegation that the petitioner impersonating himself as someone else, the offence punishable under (2025:JHHC:16468) 4 Cr. M.P. No.299 of 2025 Section 319 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner and in the absence of any false document having been created by the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 336 (2) and 340 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is also not made out against the petitioner. 11. In the absence of any of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. of this case has been registered, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this F.I.R. against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. of Sadar (Mesra OP) P.S. Case No.564 of 2024, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. of Sadar (Mesra OP) P.S. Case No.564 of 2024 is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 13. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of June, 2025 AFR/ Animesh