(2025:JHHC:21110) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 746 of 2025 Rajiv Mehtab Agrwal @ Rajiv Mehtab Agrawal, aged about 53 years, S/o late Mehtab Agarwal, R/o F-1502, Pearl Court Apartment, Ramprasthra Green, Vaishali, Sector-6, P.O. & P.S.- Vasundhra, Dist.- Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gopal Ojha, S/o Ramashrai Ojha, R/o Bhola Bagan, Road No.14, Chhota Govindpur, P.O. & P.S.- Govindpur, Jamshedpur, Distt.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate : Mr. Nishad Khan, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate --- 04/30.07.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4870 of 2023 for the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of Mr. Adnan Aqueeb, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of summoning order dated 29.06.2024, passed by Mr. Adnan Aqueeb, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and wherein, the learned Judicial Magistrate had found the case to be true under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and issued summon to arraign the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had on two instances taken loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant/ opposite party No.2 and thereafter, he did not return the said amount. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner at the very inception of taking loan had mala-fide intention to cheat the opposite party No.2. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh -2- Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors passed in Criminal Appeal No.2963 of 2025 in which, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 as follows:- “10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality. 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to 5 the 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016. 12. Why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute between the parties is of a civil nature.” Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submitted that the petitioner had mala-fide intention at the very inception to cheat the opposite party no.2. From the facts of this case, it appears that the entire dispute between the parties is of civil nature. In view of the aforesaid facts, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4870 of 2023 and order passed under Section 204 of the Cr. P.C. finding the prima-facie case to be true under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is quashed. This application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jay/-