Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21061 (JHR)

Satyendra Nath Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand

2026-01-06

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 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 proceeding as against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.269 of 2024 including the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the brother of the complainant, obtained several signatures on several documents and blank papers with a promise to give her share after documentation but did not give her share. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses found prima facie case 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 Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 INSC 1096 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has mentioned the ingredients of offence of cheating in paragraph-12 which reads as under:- “ 12 . The ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows: 1) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby 2)(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person: (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Agrawal & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.617 of 2021 dated 13.06.2023 and submits that in that case, this Court 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-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 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) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that it is the admitted case of the complainant that the petitioner happens to be her own brother and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with oblique motive only for wrecking vengeance. It is further submitted that after the death of the father of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 filed Partition Suit No.15 of 2006 against the petitioner as well as his mother and the said suit was dismissed on 28.08.2012. It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of delivery of any property to the petitioner or anyone for retention of any property by the petitioner or anyone. It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of delivery of any property to the petitioner or anyone for retention of any property by the petitioner or anyone. Hence, in the absence of this essential ingredient as well as in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. 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 the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the petitioner has deceived the complainant and by such deception, has obtained her signature on blank papers and some documents; which the complainant has done in good faith considering her relationship with the petitioner, as the petitioner is her own brother. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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 to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, two essential ingredients are required which are:- (i) deceit i.e., to say dishonest or fraudulent representation and (ii) inducing the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained the signature of the complainant on some documents and on some blank papers. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the complainant delivered any property or consented that any person shall retain any property. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained the signature of the complainant on some documents and on some blank papers. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the complainant delivered any property or consented that any person shall retain any property. In the absence of this essential ingredient and in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties; which is the other essential ingredient to constitute the offence of cheating, 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. Hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.269 of 2024 including the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.269 of 2024 including the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.