(2026:JHHC:2619) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1212 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1212 of 2019 1. Abhishekh Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar, aged about 40 years, resident of Madnani Lane, near Tiwary Dairy Campus, Mithanpura, Musahri, Ramna, P.O. & P.S.-Musahri, Dist.-Muzaffapur (Bihar) 2. Ritesh Prasad @ Ritesh Kumar, aged about 43 years, resident of Madnani Lane, near Tiwary Dairy Campus, Mithanpura, Musahri, Ramna, P.O. & P.S.-Musahri, Dist.-Muzaffapur (Bihar) .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Chitranjan Pal, son of late Rohan Pal, resident of Surendra Colony, P.O.-Bhagabandh, P.S.-Borragarh, Jharia, Dist.-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate : Ms. Rashika Bajaj, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None ….. 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 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 3541 of 2017 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for proceeding against (2026:JHHC:2619) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1212 of 2019 the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in- spite of repeated calls. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 claiming himself to be the manager and the petitioner no.2 claiming himself to be an associate of a non-existent company deceived and dishonestly and fraudulently induced the complainant so deceived, to part with Rs.90,000/- by promising him alluring returns and handed over a fake certificate of deposit of a non-existent company; with their signatures in the same; but later on the complainant came to know that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 with the intention to cheat him since the very inception has cheated him and dishonestly misappropriated the money by taking the same from the complainant by way of cheating. 5. 5. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case against the petitioners and passed the summoning order as already indicated above. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order has been passed mechanically and the complainant is using the (2026:JHHC:2619) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1212 of 2019 criminal court for realization of his money. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no firm in the name and style of “Navratan Marketing” on whose behalf the petitioners have issued the certificate of deposit. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioners have issued certificate of deposit of Rs.90,000/- in favour of the complainant signed by themselves purportedly to be issued by one “Navratan Marketing”. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the signature on the certificate of deposit issued by the petitioners, the copy of which has been filed along with the complaint is not in dispute so, this itself is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that in view of the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence, there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. (2026:JHHC:2619) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1212 of 2019 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of deceiving the complainant by claiming themselves to be respectively the manager and associate of “Navratan Marketing” and they dishonestly and fraudulently induced the complainant to part with Rs.90,000/- by issuing a certificate of deposit purportedly issued by “Navratan Marketing” even though it is the admitted case of the petitioners that there is no such entity as “Navratan Marketing” on whose behalf they issued certificate of deposit. The signature of the petitioners on the certificate of deposit issued on behalf of Navratan Marketing is not in dispute. 9. In view of the undisputed case of the petitioners that they issued the certificate deposit to the complainant for Rs.90,000/- on behalf of a non-existing entity, the same is sufficient enough to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 2nd February, 2026 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 05/02/2026