(2026:JHHC:4330) 1 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.595 of 2023 ------ Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 58 years, son of Late Ganga Ram Sharma, resident of B. N. Saha DAV Teachers’ Training College, Sirsia, Giridih. PIN 815312 P.O. + P.S. Giridih … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gautam Kumar s/o Sri Surendra Kumar, r/o Pandedih, Behind Mansa Mandir, Post Office & Police Station- Giridih, District Giridih. PIN 815312, P.O.- Giridih; P.S.- Giridih … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate ------ 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Principal of B.N.S.D.A.V Teachers’ Training College, Sirsiya, Giridih. The complainant was selected as a Lecturer in the said college at the (2026:JHHC:4330) 2 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2023 monthly salary of Rs.35,500/- but after joining, he was given a lesser amount. He worked in the said college for twenty-seven (27) months but during that period, he was paid Rs.35,000-40,000/- only. He resigned from the college and upon meeting the petitioner, the complainant asked for the money. The petitioner refused to give any money and threatened that he would implicate the complainant in false case. The petitioner, in connivance with one Sunil Kumar Verma submitted a false complaint to the D.G.P. which upon enquiry, was found to be false. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that even if entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true still none of the offence in respect of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence, is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the case is next fixed to 12.03.2026 for evidence before charge and the charge has not yet been framed. It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the very inception of the transaction between the parties and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. It is then submitted that in the absence of any allegation of any provocation being (2026:JHHC:4330) 3 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2023 given to the complainant to commit breach of peace or any other offence or to create any alarm, the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, 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 & 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 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 (2026:JHHC:4330) 4 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2023 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 since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 7. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the very beginning. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the entire salary due to the informant, was not paid. There is no allegation against the petitioner of inducing the complainant to part with any property. Under such circumstances, particularly in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner played deception since the very inception, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 8. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraphs-24 and 25 of which read as under:- “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy (2026:JHHC:4330) 5 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2023 language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] . 25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” (emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” has held that the mere allegation that the appellant threatened the complainant does not by itself satisfies the ingredients as laid down in paragraph-13 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44. (2026:JHHC:4330) 6 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2023 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation that the threat allegedly given by the petitioner consisted of any injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant or someone else in whom the complainant is interested nor is there any allegation that the petitioner did the threatening with the intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to cause the complainant to do any act which he was not legally bound to do. 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 their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner of inflicting any intentional insult of such a degree that could provoke the complainant to break public peace or to commit any other offence. In the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 11. In view of the discussions made above since none of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih, is made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of this (2026:JHHC:4330) 7 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2023 criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case where the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of February, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 18/02/2026