(2026:JHHC:13589) 1 Cr.M.P. No. 4285 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 4285 of 2019 1. Ms. Sana Irfan, aged about 29 years, daughter of Syed Ifran Akhtar; 2. Zeeshan Akhtar @ Zee Shan Sayed Hassan, aged about 27 years, son of Syed Irfan Akhtar (Both are residents of 262, Arvindo Nagar, Doranda, PO & PS Doranda, District- Ranchi). … … …Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Wais Mohammad, son of Md. Yunus, resident of Nala Road, near Happy Children School, PO – GPO, Ranchi, PS – Hindpiri, District – Ranchi. … …Opp. Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate ------ PRESENT 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 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, with the prayer to quash the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 1049 of 2019, whereby and whereunder prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been found against the petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (2026:JHHC:13589) 2 Cr.M.P. No. 4285 of 2019 Ranchi and also the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners for having in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, misappropriated Rs. 15,00,000/- entrusted to them and also committed the offence of cheating. 3. The brief fact of this case is that the petitioners approached the complainant to become their partner in a business and on being so convinced, the complainant became a partner and one partnership deed was executed on 09.05.2018. As the capital of the partnership, the complainant transferred Rs. 9,00,000/- through online mode and also subsequently paid Rs. 6,00,000/- in cash. The petitioners have invested money for the purpose of opening a second shop and handed over the money so entrusted by the complainant to their relatives. When the complainant demanded back his money, the accused persons refused to return the same and abused the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, statement of complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, found prima facie case as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rana Chakravarthi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another dated 20.03.2024 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 962 of 2023 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of (2026:JHHC:13589) 3 Cr.M.P. No. 4285 of 2019 Bihar reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168, Paragraph No. 15 of which reads as under:- “15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that where there is no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making alleged promise, the offence punishable under Section 420 is not made out. 5. In that case, this Court in this respect also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dilip Kaur & Others. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, Paragraph No. 10 of which reads as under:- “10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non- refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )” (emphasis supplied) (2026:JHHC:13589) 4 Cr.M.P. No. 4285 of 2019 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of R.N. Singh & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another dated 02.09.2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1385 of 2017 and submits that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MNG Bharateesh Reddy Reddi Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan & Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1061, paragraph no. 24 of which reads as under:- “24. None of the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust have been demonstrated on the allegations in the complaint as they stand. The first respondent alleges that the Appellant caused breach of trust by issuing grossly irregular bills, which adversely affected his professional fees. However, an alleged breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment. No element of entrustment has been prima facie established based on the facts and circumstances of the present matter. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are ex facie not made out on the basis of the complaint as it stands.” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principles of law that breach of contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust without there being any clear case of entrustment. It is further submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Another 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 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 (2026:JHHC:13589) 5 Cr.M.P. No. 4285 of 2019 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 has reiterated the settled principles of law that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases, the breach of contract would amount to cheating, where there was any deception played at the very inception. 7. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of 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 no. 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) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principles of law that to make out the case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that the money has been retained by the (2026:JHHC:13589) 6 Cr.M.P. No. 4285 of 2019 accused persons and it must also be shown that the accused persons dishonestly disposed of the same or has dishonestly retained the same. 8. It is lastly submitted that as no offence in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Magistrate, is made out, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to an abuse to the process of law, as this is a pure civil dispute which has been given a clock of criminal case in order to wreak vengeance against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 9. Learned Addl. P.P. and Opposite Party No. 2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of A. Ayyasamy Vs. A. Paramasivam & Others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 386, wherein in the facts of that case, despite there being an arbitration clause in the partnership deed, one of the parties filed a civil suit while other party argued before the Civil Court that the parties are bound by the agreement and there was no reason to file civil suit but the trial court dismissed the application of the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by relying upon its own judgment in the case of N. Radhakrishnan Vs. Maestro reported in (2010) 1 SCC 72, and as in the facts of that case, it did not warrant the matter to be tried and decided by the arbitrator and held that the same may be tried in a Court of Law; which would be more competent and which has the requisite means to (2026:JHHC:13589) 7 Cr.M.P. No. 4285 of 2019 decide such complicated matter involving various questions and issues raised in the dispute; and submits that if the allegations made against the petitioners, are considered to be true in their entirety, then all the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case is in fact made out. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant invested the money in a partnership business in which the complainant was the one of the partners and the petitioners were other partners. It is pertinent to mention here that the partners are the co-owners of a property and not trustees. There is no material in the record to show that there was any special agreement by which the petitioners were entrusted with money or any property by the co-partner; being the complainant. In absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the materials in the record are insufficient to show entrustment of any property to the petitioners by the complainant and also in absence of the other ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners, are considered to be true in their entirety, then still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out against the petitioners. So far as the offence punishable under (2026:JHHC:13589) 8 Cr.M.P. No. 4285 of 2019 Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as already indicated above in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused persons must have played deception from the very beginning of the transaction between the parties. 11. Now coming to the facts of this case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners have played any deception from the very beginning of the transaction between the parties and in absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out. 12. In view of the discussions made above, as neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners shall amount to an abuse to the process of law, hence, this is a fit case to quash and set aside the said order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, and the said order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned J.M. – 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1049 of 2019, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. (2026:JHHC:13589) 9 Cr.M.P. No. 4285 of 2019 13. Accordingly, the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, and order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned J.M. – 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1049 of 2019, is quashed and set aside. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 29th April, 2026 AFR/ Aditi Uploaded On -11/05/2026