( 2025:JHHC:19503) 1 Cr.M.P. No.534 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 534 of 2024 Kiran Soreng @ Kiran Soren, aged about 45 years, wife of Shri Ajay Albinous Tete, resident of Birsa Chowk, Prakash Nagar, P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.-Jagannathpur, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sharma Chandravanshi, son of late Manrakhan Chandravanshi, resident of Village-Devgana, P.O.-Meral, P.S.-Meral, Dist.-Garhwa (Jharkhand) …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Dhanajay Kr. Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Raju Koiri, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ….. 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 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, in connection with Meral P.S. Case No. 200 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2304 of 2012, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Garhwa. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer of Meral block in the District of Garhwa. The co-accused persons namely Ram Kumar Ram, ( 2025:JHHC:19503) 2 Cr.M.P. No.534 of 2024 Mandeo Sao and Harkhu Chandrabanshi were selected for planting of saplings in their land under the MNREGA scheme. Several persons were employed by them but they were never paid the remuneration of the work done by them. 4. The complainant filed Complaint Case No. 1470 of 2012 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa which upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Meral P.S. Case No. 200 of 2012 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and basing upon the same, vide order dated 23.12.2017, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa took cognizance of the said offences inter alia against the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the aggrieved persons and the said three accused persons of the case nor there is any allegation of entrustment against the petitioner; so no offence either for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code or under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it is submitted that in paragraph no. 102 of the said judgment, the ( 2025:JHHC:19503) 3 Cr.M.P. No.534 of 2024 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the categories of cases by way of illustrations where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and this case also comes under the said illustrations. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that if the entire allegation made in the FIR, charge sheet and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety then both the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been held by 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 ( 2025:JHHC:19503) 4 Cr.M.P. No.534 of 2024 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) 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 will not amount to cheating. 8. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 paragraph-18 of which reads as under:- “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)” ( 2025:JHHC:19503) 5 Cr.M.P. No.534 of 2024 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, it must also be shown that the accused dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving the labourers who were engaged in the field of the co-accused persons or promising anything to them. There is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner played any deception since the beginning of the transaction between the co-accused persons and the labourers who were employed by them for planting of saplings in their land. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients are as follows:- (i) Mens rea (ii) There must be dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract (iii) The accused dishonestly used or disposed of the property 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of any entrustment nor there is ( 2025:JHHC:19503) 6 Cr.M.P. No.534 of 2024 any allegation of any dishonest misappropriation made by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out either. 13. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Meral P.S. Case No. 200 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 2304 of 2012 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Meral P.S. Case No. 200 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 2304 of 2012 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 15. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th July, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-