(2026:JHHC:18364) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1783 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1783 of 2026 ------ Rakesh Sen Gupta, S/o Late Ratan Prasad Gupta, aged 45 years, R/o Bye Pass Road, Jhumri Telaiya, Rajpura, Nawada Basti, P.O. + P.S. Jhumri Telaiya, District Koderma … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. ------ 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Dhansar P.S. Case No.41 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4) and 351 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on but charge-sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the year 2019, took a total sum of Rs.7,08,000/- on different dates from the informant but did not repay the same till the year 2026. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation of dishonest (2026:JHHC:18364) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1783 of 2026 misappropriation of any entrusted property, the offence punishable under Section 316 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that in the absence of the petitioner playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction, the offence punishable under Section 318 (4) of the B.N.S., 2023 is also not made out. 5. So far as the offence punishable under Section 351 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing any criminal intimidation to the informant or anyone else. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 351 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is also not made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety then all the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered, is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the entire criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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 (2026:JHHC:18364) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1783 of 2026 pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 paragraph-13 of which reads as under:- “13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” (Emphasis supplied) that mere inability of the accused person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. 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 reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-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 (2026:JHHC:18364) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1783 of 2026 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 unless the accused person plays deception since the very inception, the offence of cheating will not be made out. 9. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 paragraph- 18 of which read as under:- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” (Emphasis supplied) that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused person, it must also be shown that the accused person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the accused person did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust. 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner did not repay the private loan (2026:JHHC:18364) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1783 of 2026 amount taken that too after the period of limitation for realization of the said amount by way of filing of a Civil Suit was long over. In the absence of any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, the offence punishable under Section 316 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegations made against him are considered to be true in their entirety. 11. In the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner played any deception since the beginning of the transaction, the offence punishable under Section 318 (4) of the B.N.S., 2023 is also not made out. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 351 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner of threatening the informant of such a nature which could create an alarm in the mind of the informant. Moreover, the same is a non-cognizable offence in respect of which, unless any cognizable offence is also involved, the F.I.R. is not maintainable. 13. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that as none of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered, is made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings of Dhansar P.S. Case No.41 of 2026, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. (2026:JHHC:18364) 6 Cr. M.P. No.1783 of 2026 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Dhansar P.S. Case No.41 of 2026, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of June, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 24/06/2026