[2026:JHHC:18216] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2620 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2620 of 2024 ------ Anand Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, S/O Late Ram Charitra Singh, Resident of At- Chanho No.- II, P.O.- Oriya, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Hazaribagh, (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anandi Prasad Singh, Son of – Late Mohan Singh @ Jagmohan Singh, Resident of – Awash Board, Dipugarha, P.O. and P.S.- Sadar, District – Hazaribaghh … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shailendra Jit, 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 taking cognizance dated 22.09.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 289 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 983 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned court below took cognizance of the offences [2026:JHHC:18216] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2620 of 2024 punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner though was not the owner of the land as he already alienated the land to someone else and thus ceased to be the owner of the land, deceived the complainant and the witness No.2 as well as the son of the complainant by dishonestly making them believe that the petitioner is the owner of the land concerned and thereby induced them so deceived, to pay part with Rs.6,00,000/- by making the complainant and the witness No.2 , pay the same to the petitioner and entered into an agreement separately with the complainant and witness No.2 namely Baijnath Singh but did not execute the sale-deed and later on, when the complainant found the cheating committed by the petitioner by fabricating and committing forgery of documents by using the forged documents as genuine, the petitioner issued three separate cheques of Rs.2,00,000/- each that is, for a total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on behalf of a Company- ‘Matrix Services and Solution Private Limited’ but the said cheques were also dishonoured. Complaint Case No. 1637 of 2019 filed by the complainant was referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, basing upon which Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.289 of 2019 was registered and police took up investigation of the case and after finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true, submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial [2026:JHHC:18216] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2620 of 2024 Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3020 of 2024 dated 22nd July, 2024 and submits that therein in para- 12, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 next submits that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is then submitted that though the petitioner was convicted in Complaint Case No. 1041 of 2015 involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of dishonour of the cheques but the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2018 and vide the judgment dated 30.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribagh, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of conviction was set aside. It is further submitted that the opposite party No.2 has already filed Money Suit No. 161 of 2019 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Hazaribagh for realization of Rs.8,80,000/- and this case has been filed with mala fide intention after four years of dishonour of the cheques and the offence punishable [2026:JHHC:18216] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2620 of 2024 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is barred by law of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor 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 facts of the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra) are entirely different from the facts of this case, as in that case, the vendor was the owner of the property but in this case, the petitioner though was not the owner of the property, deceived the complainant by falsely making him believe that the petitioner is the owner of the property and the complainant so deceived was induced by the petitioner to part with huge amount of money, hence, the ratio of the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, there is no rhyme or reason as to why the entire criminal proceedings is to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further submits that it is a settled principle of law that if by the act of accused person, both a civil case and a criminal case are made out, in [2026:JHHC:18216] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2620 of 2024 such cases merely because the complainant has availed the civil remedy, will not debar the complainant from instituting a criminal case; if any criminal offence is made out on the basis of the allegations. It is lastly submitted that if the allegations made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., the case-diary and the charge sheet are considered to be true in their entirety; certainly, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra). In this case, unlike the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra), the petitioner was not the owner of the property on the date of inducing the complainant to part with huge amount of money, by deceiving the complainant and others by falsely making them believe, that the petitioner is the owner of the land concerned. 9. The undisputed fact remains that on the date of entering into the agreement and receiving money from the complainant and the witness No.2, the petitioner ceased to be the owner of the property. So, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of the case of [2026:JHHC:18216] 6 Cr. M.P. No.2620 of 2024 Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that though the petitioner was not the owner of the property on the date of the alleged occurrence, he deceived the complainant and the witness No.2 by falsely making them believe that he is the owner of the property and the complainant and the witness No.2 so deceived were induced by the petitioner to part with huge amount of money by paying the money to him and this allegation against the petitioner was found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and after finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true, police submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the said offences as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment. 11. In view of the discussions made above, since the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, if the entire allegations made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., the materials collected during the investigation of the case as mentioned in the case-diary and the charge sheet are considered to be true in their entirety. 12. It is needless to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that merely because the offence committed by an accused has a civil [2026:JHHC:18216] 7 Cr. M.P. No.2620 of 2024 remedy, that will not debar the complainant to institute a criminal case if for the same set of occurrence also amounts to commission of an offence. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of its power under 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of June, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 23/06/2026