[2026:JHHC:14908] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1003 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1003 of 2025 1. Vijay Kumar Pandey @ Vijay Pandey, aged about 52 years, son of Rajendra Nath Pandey, resident of New Bundu Road, Silli, P.O. Silli, P.S. Silli, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Ram Naresh Prasad, aged about 53 years, son of Dinesh Ram, resident of Sector 1 Colony, Near J.S.P.L., P.O. Balkudra, P.S. Basal-Patratu, Gegda, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mohammad Aslam Khan, son of Abdul Rouf Khan, resident of House No.25, Near Chepapul Iqra Colony, Azad Nagar, P.O. Mango, P.S. Azad Nagar, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha , Adv. Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah , Adv. For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 379 of 2024 including the order taking cognizance dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned JMFC, Jamshedpur by which learned Magistrate has issued summon to the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 417 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 2 is Head H.R. of Amalgam Steel Private Limited, Kandra, Searaikjella- Kharsawan and petitioner no. 1 is the President, H.R. [2026:JHHC:14908] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1003 of 2025 of the said Private limited company, in which the complainant earlier used to work as General Manager. The complainant voluntarily resigned from the said post of the company and after submission of voluntary resignation, the complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 16,87,424/- towards full and final settlement. The company paid Rs. 14,37,204/- to the complainant but did not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,220/- to the complainant even after issuing notice to the petitioners. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, learned Magistrate passed the said summoning order. 4. Relying upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V.K. Mittal & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand reported 2009 SCC OnLine Jhar 1635 the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therein the co-ordinate Bench of this court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373 and went on to hold that non-payment of salary by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. It is next submitted that this case has been instituted against the petitioners on the basis of false and concocted story and a cloak of criminal case has been given to a purely civil dispute and even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in its entirety still none of the offences, in respect of which, summoning order has been passed, is made out against the petitioners hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2, on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the right of the petitioner to recover the amount due and payable to him by the company concerned, should be kept open to be agitated by the opposite party no. 2 and this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. [2026:JHHC:14908] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1003 of 2025 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC are – (i) There must be an entrustment, (ii) There must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of direction or any legal contract, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narain Popli vs. CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of any entrustment of any property nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC is not made out. 8. So far as the offence punishable under section 417 of IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are :- (i) The accused voluntarily or dishonestly induce the complainant, (ii) he did so for delivery of some Property either to the accused or to some other person, (iii) he intentionally induced complainant to do a thing which he would not do or omit to do a thing which he would have done if not induced, (iv) Such act caused or likely to cause some damage or harm to the body mind reputation or property. 9. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-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 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 [2026:JHHC:14908] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1003 of 2025 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) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception at the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to deceive develops later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties nor there is any allegation against the petitioners in any manner to have deceived the complainant or having induced him to part with any property. Under such circumstances this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true still the offence punishable under section 417 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners even with the aid of 34 of the IPC, hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 379 of 2024 including the order taking cognizance dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned JMFC, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 379 of 2024 including the order taking cognizance dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned JMFC, Jamshedpur is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 12. . In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 13th May, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 19.05.2026