[2026:JHHC:20971] 1 Cr. M.P. No.278 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2025 ------ Ashim Kumar Nandy, aged about – 67 years, Son of Late Tarapada Nandy, Resident of Village- Maharajpur, P.O. & P.S. Islampur, District- Sahibganj, Jharkhand and also reside at C/o Dr. A.L. Kundu, B-2-195, Kalyani, P.O. & P.S. Kalyani District- Nadia, West Bengal. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Alok Kumar Nandy, Son of Late Tarapada Nandy, resident of Flat No. 301, F-Block, “MEGHDOOT”, P.O.- Kadma, P.S. Kadma Town Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No.9448 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to amend the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by incorporating the additional prayer of quashing the order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.3425 [2026:JHHC:20971] 2 Cr. M.P. No.278 of 2025 of 2023 by which charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is framed against the petitioner; both in para-1 and the prayer portion of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is next submitted that the proposed amendment is necessitated because of the developments which took place after filing of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is then submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is further submitted that unless the amendment as proposed in this interlocutory application is allowed, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this interlocutory application be allowed. 3. Considering the facts of the case, the prayer to carry out the amendment as proposed in this interlocutory application is allowed. 4. The petitioner is directed to file a consolidated Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by incorporating the proposed amendment as allowed today in this interlocutory application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the consolidated Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in the court after serving the copy of the same upon the opposite party No.2. 6. Keep the same in the record. 7. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2025 1. Heard the parties. [2026:JHHC:20971] 3 Cr. M.P. No.278 of 2025 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 including the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3425 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issue of summons against the petitioner and the prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.3425 of 2023 by which charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner in total took loan of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) from the complainant with promise to return the same within three years but despite the same, he did not return the money to the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on the solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and also framed charge for the said offence vide the order dated 29.05.2026 passed in the said case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no witness has been examined in this case by the complainant. Learned counsel for the [2026:JHHC:20971] 4 Cr. M.P. No.278 of 2025 petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rishi Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in 2025:JHHC:31723 and submits that this Court in the facts of that case, 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, in that case relating to failure of repayment of the loan taken, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that 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 of the Indian Penal Code without there being a clear case of entrustment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true still, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that [2026:JHHC:20971] 5 Cr. M.P. No.278 of 2025 the loan taken by a person cannot amount to entrustment. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.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 since the petitioner has taken the loan but has not repaid the same to the complainant, hence, the same amounts to the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 refer to para-13 of the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Another (supra) 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 [2026:JHHC:20971] 6 Cr. M.P. No.278 of 2025 dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” wherein, it has categorically been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the 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 between the parties. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took loan but he did not repay the same to the complainant. Taking a loan does not amount to entrustment of money. Giving or taking a loan establishes a debtor-creditor relationship and not a legal trust. In the case of loan, the borrower gains a complete beneficial ownership of the funds. In case of a loan, the ownership and dominion over the funds passes to the borrower and the borrower is expected to use the funds and return the equivalent sum but on the other hand; entrustment means property legally remains with the original owner. So, mere failure or inability to repay a loan does not automatically constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, in the absence of any property entrusted as the word ‘entrusted’ has been used in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment for which has been provided for in Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even after 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. This criminal case has been initiated against the petitioner [2026:JHHC:20971] 7 Cr. M.P. No.278 of 2025 for the purpose of wreaking vengeance to put pressure upon the petitioner to settle purely a civil dispute. Hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3425 of 2023 as well as the order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in the said case, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3425 of 2023 as well as the order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in the said case, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th of July 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 17/07/2026