[2026:JHHC:17581] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1767 of 2025 ------ Ajay Kumar Chouhan @ Ajay Chouhan, aged about 37 years, son of Late Krishna Kumar Chouhan, resident of Barajamua, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S.- Barwadda, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Roshan Beldar, son of late Nunulal Beldar, resident of Burragarh Basti, P.O. Bhagabandh, P.S.- Jharia, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mohammad Asghar, 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 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and has taken cognizance of the said offences. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the father of the petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant-informant-opposite [2026:JHHC:17581] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 party No.2 on 30.07.2015 to sell his land and received advance amount of Rs.5,75,000/-. The father of the petitioner died. The petitioner also received Rs.85,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively on 05.04.2016 and 29.07.2017 but the petitioner is not returning the money despite demand notice being served upon him. The complainant-informant on 22.02.2024 filed Complaint Case No. 2387 of 2024 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. The same being referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Barwadda P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024 has been registered and the police after investigation of the case, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and basing upon the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jay Prakash Narayan Sinha @ Jai Prakash Narain Sinha & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:28046 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311, para-12 of which reads as under:- “12.xxx In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to [2026:JHHC:17581] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the accused person by the complainant and merely because the seller is refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that in the case of Jay Prakash Narayan Sinha @ Jai Prakash Narain Sinha & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), 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. Xxxxx 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) and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that unless the accused plays deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence of cheating will not be made out. [2026:JHHC:17581] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Indrani Sen Choudhary vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:37798 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360, paragraph-13 of which reads as under:- “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. [2026:JHHC:17581] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the original agreement was made between the complainant-informant- opposite party No.2 and the father of the petitioner and not with the petitioner, hence, the petitioner playing deception since the beginning of the transaction does not arise. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Latika Chari & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2024:JHHC:45032 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, para-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) and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that if the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute resulting from the alleged breach of contract on the part of the petitioner, hence, the offence punishable under Section 406 is not made out. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Latika Chari & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), this Court [2026:JHHC:17581] 6 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, para-11 of which reads as under:- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment. (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if the property entrusted to an accused is used, mere retention of that property would not amount to misappropriation of the property. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823 and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code are antithetical in nature and cannot coexist simultaneously. [2026:JHHC:17581] 7 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060 and submits that therein, in the facts of that case, as the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery was not prima facie made out, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the First Information Report and consequential charge sheet. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered that the delay in lodging the complaint. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in this case, the F.I.R. was lodged after the limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of contract was long over; as the F.I.R. was instituted only on 01.04.2024 though the agreement was entered into on 30.07.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even after the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still 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, therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. [2026:JHHC:17581] 8 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 14. Learned Addl.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 this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the allegations made in the F.I.R., the materials collected during the investigation of the case as mentioned in the case diary and the contents of the charge sheet are considered to be true, then the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, is in fact, made out. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 15. 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 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that unless the accused person plays deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, no offence of cheating can be made out. 16. Now coming to the facts of the case, admittedly the petitioner did not enter into an agreement with the complainant-informant- opposite party No.2 rather it is the father of the petitioner, who is since deceased, entered into the agreement with the complainant-informant- opposite party No.2. So, in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner was party to the agreement entered into between the parties, it cannot be said that the petitioner had any intention to deceive the informant-complainant-opposite party No.2 right at the beginning of the transaction between his father and the complainant-informant- [2026:JHHC:17581] 9 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 opposite party No.2. Therefore, 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 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said offence is ‘there was an entrustment and dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property’. 18. Now coming to the facts of the case, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra) that the amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the accused person. So, the only allegation against the petitioner so far as the entrustment is concerned, payment of the money towards part consideration amount. So, the same cannot be termed as entrustment as the word ‘entrusted’ has been used in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code; for which punishment has been provided in Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. There is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of any dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property. 19. 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 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. [2026:JHHC:17581] 10 Cr. M.P. No.1767 of 2025 20. 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 even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 21. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 22. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 23. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 30.07.2025 stands vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th of June, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 22/06/2026