Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21090 (JHR)

Jasbir Singh 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.4572 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant deposited a cheque in his bank account with State Bank of India and the said cheque was not honoured; nor the cheque which he presented in his bank account was returned. On being asked by the complainant, the petitioner who was the AGM, State Bank of India and the Administrative Head of the Hatia Branch of State Bank of India, whom the complainant claims to be the branch manager, told the complainant that he does not have the cheque and he will not return the cheque concerned to the complainant. A legal notice was given to the petitioner to which he did not respond. 4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complaint and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case as already indicated above and passed the summoning order against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Maya Rani vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 2950, 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. “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 it was held that every breach of contract would not give rise to the 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 will not amount to cheating. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case, this court also relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 , para-12 of which reads as under:- “12.xxxx In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that unless there is an entrustment of property, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code will not be made out. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction with the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction with the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no entrustment of any property to the petitioner as the complainant himself claims that he deposited the cheque in his account and he has not handed it over to the petitioner, so it is next submitted that the State Bank of India which is a juristic person and has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint and in the absence of any allegation of entrustment or in the absence of any allegation of dishonest misappropriation against the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, hence, in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner; even if the entire allegations made against him are considered to be true. Therefore, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 9. 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 the instant Cr.M.P and fairly submit that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, but the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as it will be a deemed entrustment of the cheque to the petitioner and as he has not returned the cheque even after receipt of legal notice, therefore, the same will be deemed to be a dishonest misappropriation of the cheque which was entrusted. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner has played deception since the beginning, certainly, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the first essential requirement is entrustment of any property. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the admitted case of the complainant is that the complainant deposited the cheque concerned in his bank account and it is not even the case of the complainant that he handed over the cheque to the petitioner and in the absence of any such allegation, at best, it may be the case of the complainant that the person concerned who received the cheque on behalf of the bank or the bank which is a body corporate might have been entrusted with the cheque. Certainly, in the absence of any specific averment anywhere in the complaint, there is no material in the record to suggest that there was any entrustment to the petitioner. In the absence of any allegation of entrustment or in the absence of any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, 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 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 13. 13. In view of the discussions made above since neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.4572 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.4572 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.