[2026:JHHC:20829] 1 Cr. M.P. No.418 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.418 of 2025 ------ Shubhankar Ashutosh Pal, aged about 53 years, S/o Ashutosh Pal, r/o Flat No. G-744, Orchid Residency, 7th Extension Road, Kagal Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Sonari, District- East Singhbhum, officiating his work as the Plant Head of Hospet Steels Ltd., P.O. and P.S. Ginigera, Koppal, District-Pune, State-Mahatrashtra. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mukesh Tripathi, s/o Chandra Mauli Tiwari, aged about 50 years, r/o House No. 1304, sector 1/C, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rishi Bharti, 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 Complaint Case being C.P. Case No. 1500 of 2023 including the cognizance order dated 21.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokaro found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge has not yet been framed and the case is next fixed to 11.08.2026 for appearance. It is next submitted that the petitioner being the ‘Managing [2026:JHHC:20829] 2 Cr. M.P. No.418 of 2025 Director’ of M/s Hospet Steels Limited issued two work orders to the complainant for supply of skilled workers and in accordance of the said work orders the complainant-supplier skilled the manpower to the company of the petitioner and submitted bills for the same worth Rs.75,91,268.42/-, but against the same, the company of the petitioner paid Rs.20,07,825/- and did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.55,83,443.42/-. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro found prima facie case for the said offences and passed the summoning order on 23.03.2024 in the said C.P. Case No. 1500 of 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thermax Limited And Others versus K.M. Johny And Others reported in (2011)13 SCC 412 and submits that in para-37 of the said judgement the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the essential ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is that there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person. It is further submitted that since the dispute arose between the parties out of a contract, therefore, the remedy is only before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated that the opposite party no.2 was attempting to use the machinery of the criminal courts for private gains and for exerting unjust, undue and unwarranted pressure on the petitioner in order to fulfil his illegal demands and extract undeserving monetary gains from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner [2026:JHHC:20829] 3 Cr. M.P. No.418 of 2025 next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others versus State of Bihar and Another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 and submits that in para 15 therein it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. It is submitted that the cognizance has not been taken against the company and only against the ‘Managing Director’. It is next submitted that in this case, in the absence of any allegation of any fraudulent or dishonest intention of the petitioner shown right at the time of the beginning of the transaction, none of the offences in respect of which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro found prima facie, case is made out against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another versus State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 wherein in Para-27 it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case that since the complainant has not made any attempt for recovery of the money of rupees one crore except by filing the criminal complaint, the action appears to be mala fide and unsustainable. It is next submitted that in this case also, the complainant has not filed any money suit for recovery of 55 lakhs odd rather, even this criminal case was filed beyond [2026:JHHC:20829] 4 Cr. M.P. No.418 of 2025 the period of limitation for filing a money suit; as though the bill was raised in the year 2019, but the complaint was filed on 19.08.2023,which is beyond the period of three years as per law of limitations, hence, otherwise also, filing of complaint case is a mala fide one. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others versus State of West Bengal and Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took note of its observation made in the judgment in the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal courts to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of a civil nature and submits that in this case, the dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature and even if, the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Sections 406 nor 420 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 6. The learned Addl.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that if the entire allegation as made against the petitioner in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, then both the offences punishable under Sections 406 as well as 420 of the I.P.C. is made out. Therefore, this Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. [2026:JHHC:20829] 5 Cr. M.P. No.418 of 2025 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is 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 Vir Prakash Sharma versus Anil Kumar Agarwal and Another reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373 para-08 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 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that when the dispute between the parties 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. 8. It is also a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Umashankar Gopalika versus State of Bihar reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 para 06 which reads as under:- [2026:JHHC:20829] 6 Cr. M.P. No.418 of 2025 “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)” 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 and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, so far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (i) There must be an entrustment; and (ii) There must be misappropriation or conversion to own use; or (iii) Use in violation of legal direction or of legal contact. as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of any entrustment of any property with the petitioner nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property against the petitioner. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the [2026:JHHC:20829] 7 Cr. M.P. No.418 of 2025 petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C. is not made out. 11. So far as the the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence, are as under:- (a) Deceit, i.e. to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation; and (b) Inducing the person deceived to part with property; 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception at the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Admittedly, this is a case of underpayment of the services rendered by the complainant. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners 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. 13. In view of the discussions made above, since neither the offences in respect of which learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case and ordered to issue of summons, is made out against the petitioner, hence this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the entire proceeding of the C.P. Case No. 1500 of 2023 including the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. [2026:JHHC:20829] 8 Cr. M.P. No.418 of 2025 14. Accordingly, the entire proceeding of the C.P. Case No. 1500 of 2023 including the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 15. In the result, this Cr.M.P. is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of July, 2026 AFR/ Amar Uploaded on 21/07/2026