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 the entire criminal proceedings, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 227 of 2022 arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019 including the order dated 14.07.2022 passed in the said case whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 504, 379, 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being a leader of a political party after coming to know about the sufferings of the informant who is a retired unmarried teacher and who was old and ailing, deceived the informant by alluring her to get a land in front of his house sold to her and offered the informant to get a house constructed for her so that she can get the medical facilities by residing in the Simdega town, though the petitioner had no intention to do any such thing and thus fraudulently and dishonestly induced the informant to pay Rs.36,87,000/- to him and to other persons close to the petitioner, in the guise that the petitioner is constructing a house for the informant in front of his house which will ultimately be sold to the informant but when all the money of the informant was taken away by the petitioner, the petitioner stopped going to the house of the informant and when the informant ultimately came to know that she has been cheated, she approached the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. Her complaint was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, to the Thetaitanger Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the informant to execute the sale deed, within two months but even after two months the petitioner did not sell the land and house to the informant; nor did he return the money taken by him to the informant but on the other hand resorted to committing criminal intimidation by threatening the informant from demanding back the money and demanded extortion on the informant. The informant, thereafter, filed Complaint Case No. 106 of 2019 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega; which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Simdega P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019 was registered and police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the said offences and on the basis of the police report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not appeared in the court concerned and the case is next fixed on 13.02.2026 for appearance and charge has not yet been framed in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 and submits that therein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused persons by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. It is next submitted that at best, it is a case of taking advance for sale of land and house. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 INSC 512 and submits that in the facts of that case, as the charge sheet was bereft of the particulars and details required mandatorily in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and FIR does not state the material and evidence available and collected during the course of investigation to establish the offences; in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR and resultant proceedings including the charge sheet. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shakti Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:38058 and submits that in the facts of 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 No.6 of which reads as under:- ”6. Xxxxx 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) and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused person must play deception since very inception. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in the case of Shakti Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), this Court also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraphs-24 and 25 of which read as under :- “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] . "25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal&Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.”(emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.’’ and submits that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Sections 504 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false. It is then submitted that in fact the petitioner has paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the informant and the informant issued cheques which were dishonoured and after demand notice was issued by the petitioner, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made an application for obtaining permission for selling the land in question in favour of the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor 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 this is not a case like the facts of the case of Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another (supra), because this is not a case where the agreement for sale was entered into between the parties since the beginning. Rather this is a case where when there being no agreement in writing, the petitioner deceived the old and ailing retired unmarried informant-lady taking advantage of knowledge about her weakness, in a meeting organized by his political party and exploited such weakness of the informant, by deceiving her and dishonestly and fraudulently inducing her to part with Rs.36,87,000/- and only after the informant approached the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega and the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega referred the application to the Thetaitanger Police Station, then only subsequently, in order to save himself from prosecution for cheating, he executed an agreement for sale. So, here the offence of cheating had been committed prior to entering into the agreement for sale, hence, fact of this case is different from the facts of the case of Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another (supra). Hence, the ratio of that judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the police after investigation of the case by collecting the materials, the details of which has been mentioned in the case-diary, found the allegations against the petitioner to be true of having committed the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the police after investigation of the case by collecting the materials, the details of which has been mentioned in the case-diary, found the allegations against the petitioner to be true of having committed the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance. The charge sheet unlike the case of the Rikhab Birani & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra), in this case, contains the relevant information as stated under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no allegation that there is any error committed by the police, in the investigation of the case and it is not even the case of the petitioner that the materials collected during the investigation of the case as mentioned in the FIR, different paragraphs of the case-diary and the charge sheet, are insufficient to constitute the offences in respect of which charge sheet was submitted by the police and basing upon which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offences. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. 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 there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of having deceived the complainant dishonestly and fraudulently induced her to part with huge amount of money of Rs.36,87,000/-. The undisputed fact remains that the police after investigation of the case, found the allegations against the petitioner made in the FIR to be true and submitted charge sheet inter alia for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 , para-15 of which reads as under:- “15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge- sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) that the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge. 13. In this case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offences based on a police report. 13. In this case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offences based on a police report. So, once the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out at the stage of taking cognizance in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the learned Magistrate could not have subtracted the other sections even if the offences for those sections are not made out because the same can only be done at the time of framing of charge. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is evading to appear before the trial court even though he knows very well that the summoning order has been passed against him at least on 13.04.2024, when the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was filed before this Court annexing with the certified copy of the summoning order. 14. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner in avoiding to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega; even though he is knowing pretty well at least since 13.04.2023 that a summoning order has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega and the case is fixed for appearance of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.