(2026:JHHC:16926) 1 Cr.M.P. No.3571 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3571 of 2025 Vikash Kumar Jha, aged about 30 years, son of Jay Prakash Jha, resident of Brahamantola, Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.-Mahagama, Dist.- Gooda, Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Ranchi, Jharkhand Police Headquarter, DPRO Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Superintendent of Police, Godda, P.O. & P.S.-Godda, Dist.- Godda, Jharkhand 4. The Officer-Incharge, Mahagama, Godda, P.O. & P.S.-Godda, Dist.- Godda, Jharkhand 5. Prabhat Kumar Vernwal, aged about 39 years, son of late Keshav Varnwal, Deoghar Town, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, Dist.-Deoghar, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Ms. Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.5 : None ….. By the Court:- I.A. No.6912 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition. 3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) (2026:JHHC:16926) 2 Cr.M.P. No.3571 of 2025 Cr.M.P. No. 3571 of 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the FIR of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.5 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.5 in- spite of repeated calls. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the police registered Mahagama P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025 basing upon the written report submitted by the informant alleging therein that the petitioner being proprietor of M/s. J.P. Multi metal Store, Godda purchased iron rods worth Rs. 14,40,000/- between 05.01.2019 to 30.09.2019 and paid only Rs. 12,36,000/- but did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,04,000/-. The written report was submitted on 28.03.2025. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the dispute arises from a commercial transaction. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at best this is a case of under payment of the goods purchased so, no offence is made out against the petitioner, even if the entire (2026:JHHC:16926) 3 Cr.M.P. No.3571 of 2025 allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute that too the claim is barred by limitation and this criminal case has been instituted for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that if the entire allegations are considered to be true, then both the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which FIR has been registered is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373, paragraph no.8 of which reads as under:- “8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code (2026:JHHC:16926) 4 Cr.M.P. No.3571 of 2025 can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus: “405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’.” Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that when the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute, nonpayment or under-payment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 8. It is also 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 & 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) (2026:JHHC:16926) 5 Cr.M.P. No.3571 of 2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle 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 and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties rather admittedly substantial amount of the goods purchased has already been paid by the petitioner. Admittedly, the claim of the informant was barred by limitation by the time of lodging of the FIR. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation 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. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. The goods sold by a seller to a purchaser cannot be termed as entrusted property as the word ‘entrusted’ has been used under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment of which has been provided for under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. (2026:JHHC:16926) 6 Cr.M.P. No.3571 of 2025 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out either. 13. In view of the discussions made above, as 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 against the petitioner; even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, 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 FIR of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the FIR of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 15. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th June, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 12/06/2026