Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21174 (JHR)

Amar Nath Ray v. State Of Jharkhand

2026-02-12

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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of C.P. Case No.755 of 2021 including the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 427, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner made the husband of the complainant to spend Rs.20-25 lakhs for purchasing a land under litigation and also took Rs.15,00,000/- for a boundary wall to be constructed over the said land. Further, the petitioners blackmailed the husband of the complainant by taking advantage of being in possession of the blank cheques signed by the complainant and instituted a false case against the complainant, her husband and the father-in-law of the complainant, by falsely stating that the petitioners gave Rs.1,15,00,000/- as loan to the complainant, her husband and her father-in-law. There is further allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners, by forgery lowered the standard of the family and business of the complainant and committed theft of the blank cheques signed by the complainant, which was kept in the shop and distributed the same to the co-accused persons for institution of different cases against the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is next fixed for appearance and charge has not yet been framed. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.2 lodged Bokaro Sector IV P.S. Case No.156 of 2017 against the complainant, her husband and her father-in- law in which charge-sheet was also submitted and cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and the petitioner No.1 is the witness in the said case and as a retaliation to set up a defence, this false case has been foisted. It is further submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Magistrate, is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 5. 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 petitioners made in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offence in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case. Therefore, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. It is needless to mention here it is a settled principle of law as has been held by 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. 7. 7. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety still in the absence of any allegation against the petitioners of having played the deception since the very inception; the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 paragraph-28 of which reads as under:- “ 28 . “Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, “in any manner entrusted with property”. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of “trust”. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.” 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation made against the petitioners in the complaint is that the petitioners made the husband of the complainant to spend money in purchasing a land which was under litigation but the same has been improvised in the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation by stating that the petitioners, for the purpose of resolving the dispute of the property purchased by the husband of the complainant and to construct boundary wall, took Rs.15,00,000/- but there is no allegation against the petitioners of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. In the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses 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 petitioners. 10. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of destroying any property by mischief. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of committing criminal intimidation. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 12. In view of the discussions made above, since none of the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings of C.P. Case No.755 of 2021 including the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of C.P. Case No.755 of 2021 including the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.