(2026:JHHC:3894) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1175 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1175 of 2024 Subhash Singh Choudhary, aged about 58 years, son of Mahabir Singh Choudhary, resident of Park Market, Hirapur, Near Zila Parisad, P.O.- Dhanbad, P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Morias Infrastructure Private Limited, Through its Director Ripunjay Prasad Singh, a Private Limited Company incorporated and registered office at Flat No.-2-D, Tower-6, Genexx Valley, Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata, P.O.-Kolkata, P.S.- Thakurpukur, Dist.-24 Pargana (South) West Bengal. Branch-Office at 208 Pustak Bhawan, Complex, Court Road, P.O. & P.S.-Ranchi and Sub-Branch Office HIG Plot No. 13, Housing Colony, Dhanbad, P.O.+P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, represented through its Director Ripunjay Prasad Singh, son of late Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh, aged about 56 years, resident of Pustak Bhawan Complex, Court Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate : Ms. Juhi Kumari, Advocate ….. 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 the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 2019 of (2026:JHHC:3894) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1175 of 2024 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has found sufficient evidence to proceed inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant entered into an agreement with 12 accused persons of the case for developing of their land including the petitioner; as the complainant does the work of constructing buildings and paid Rs. 21,00,000/- but the possession of the land was not given to the complainant and delaying tactics was adopted by the accused persons of the case and later on the accused persons gave three cheques out of which two cheques was of Rs.3,00,000/- each and one cheque was of Rs. 2,00,000/- and all the three cheques were dishonoured. All the cheques given by the complainant towards payment of the money to the accused persons, were taken by co- accused-Prakash Singh Choudhary in his own name. The accused persons of the case had entered into an agreement with another developer before entering into the agreement with the complainant. The agreement was entered into on 29.05.2014 and the case was instituted in the year 2019. The complainant has not instituted any case of dishonour of cheque. The complainant has not instituted any case of specific performance of contract. 4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the (2026:JHHC:3894) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1175 of 2024 learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad found sufficient evidence to proceed inter alia against the petitioner and passed the summoning order as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has neither signed the alleged agreement nor any registered power of attorney and without his signature, his name has only been mentioned. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of receiving any advance amount and there is categorical a avernment of the complainant himself that all the advance amount was received by Prakash Singh Choudhary. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and there is no allegation of any criminal conspiracy having been entered into by the petitioner hence, the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal (2026:JHHC:3894) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1175 of 2024 Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. It is, therefore, 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 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 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 in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of entering into the conspiracy with anyone else. There is no allegation of entrustment of any money to the petitioner. Admittedly, the same was entrusted to the co-accused-Prakash Singh Choudhary. There is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving or inducing to part with any (2026:JHHC:3894) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1175 of 2024 money. There is no allegation against the petitioner of playing any deception since the very inception. 9. Under such circumstances, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner either individually or with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, 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 dated 26.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 2019 of 2019 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 2019 of 2019 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 11. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th February, 2026 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 17/02/2026