(2025:JHHC:12666) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 510 of 2019 ------- Ved Prakash Sharma, S/o of Late Bajrang Lal Sharma, aged about 70 years,R/o Makatpur, P.S.Giridih (T), P.O. & District Giridih. …... …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Charanjit Singh, S/o Late Sardar Indar Singh, R/o Saluja Sadan, Bhandaridih, P.S.Giridih (T), P.O. & District Giridih. .…. …. Opp. Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate -------- CAV On: 06/03/2025 Pronounced on: 25/04/2025 The petitioner has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Criminal Revision No.15/2017 and for quashing the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned J.M., 1st class, Giridih in Giridih (T) P.S.Case No.47/13 (G.R. No.499/13), arising out of Complaint Case No. 1263/2012, whereby and wherein, the learned Trial Court refused to discharge the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Cr. Revision No.15/2017 affirmed the order of the learned Trial Court, rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioner. 2. The case of the opposite party No.2 is that the petitioner had offered for sale his land and house for a consideration amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs. On 10.12.2008, an agreement was entered into between the parties. The opposite party No.2 paid Rupees Six Lakhs as an advance to the petitioner. The remaining amount was agreed to be paid by the opposite party No.2 to the petitioner so as to get the sale deed executed within two years. 3. The opposite party No.2 requested the petitioner several times to receive the balance amount but the petitioner on one pretext or another refused to receive the remaining amount. After the agreement expired on 10.12.2010, the opposite party No.2 requested the petitioner to refund his -2- money of Rupees Six Lakhs, but the petitioner used to defer it. On 30.08.2012, the opposite party No.2 alongwith several witnesses went to the house of the petitioner and demanded his money back, but the petitioner again refused to return the same. 4. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih vide order dated 19.11.2014 took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The petitioner moved before the learned Trial Court for discharge as the offence alleged was not made out. According to the petitioner, the dispute between parties was civil in nature. The learned Trial Court dismissed his discharge application on 22.12.2016. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 22.12.2016, preferred Criminal Revision No.15/17 which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih, vide order dated 10.10.2018. 7. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the dispute between the parties was civil in nature, no case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code will be made out. 8. Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No.2 submitted that the petitioner himself had approached the opposite party No.2 for selling his land and house for a consideration amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs against the said agreement, Rupees Six Lakhs was paid by the opposite party No.2 but the petitioner later on refused to execute the sale deed and he also did not return the aforesaid amount. 9. From the facts of the case, it appears that opposite party No.2 on several occasions had requested the petitioner to receive the remaining consideration amount and execute the sale deed, but on one pretext or another, petitioner refused to do so. After the agreement between the parties was expired, he refused to return the advance amount, which was paid earlier. It is a settled principle of law that the charge has to be framed if there is even iota of suspicion. 10. From the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it appears that petitioner at the very inception of the contract had the intention of cheating the opposite party No.2. He has by not executing the sale deed -3- and also by not returning the money, amounting to Rupees Six Lakhs to the opposite party No.2, caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the opposite party No.2. 11. I do not find any illegality in the order dated 22.12.2016, by which, Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned J.M., 1st class, Giridih, rejected the petition for discharge of the petitioner in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No.47/13 (G.R. No.499/13), arising out of Complaint Case No.1263/12. I also do not find any illegality in the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1,Giridih in Criminal Revision No.15/17, affirming the order of rejection of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Giridih in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No.47/13 (G.R. No.499/13), arising out of Complaint Case No.1263/12. 12. This criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) BS/-