Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21199 (JHR)

Rajrani Topno v. State of Jharkhand

2026-02-05

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 F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Birsanagar P.S. Case No.89 of 2023 in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and basing upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the said offences and has taken cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 16.02.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case and the trial is yet to begin. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, suppressing the material fact that they are the owners of a land which is governed by the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, offered to sell the land to the informant and from the informant received Rs.1,50,000/- in cash and cheques of Rs.6,40,000/- which have not yet been encashed and the validity period of the cheques is already over. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court towards page-47 of the brief which is the admitted agreement entered into between the parties wherein in clause 8 it has categorically been mentioned that the seller shall not file any case or proceeding in any court or office under the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act which indicates that the informant was very much aware that the land which was proposed to be sold by the petitioners, is governed by provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. It is next submitted that at the time of bail being granted to the petitioners, the petitioners have already paid Rs.1,50,000/-to the informant, which they received in cash from the informant. 6. It is next submitted that at the time of bail being granted to the petitioners, the petitioners have already paid Rs.1,50,000/-to the informant, which they received in cash from the informant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant/ respondent No.2 was required to show that the appellant had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation of not fulfilling the agreement for sale of the said property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code will not be made out. It is further submitted that in that case, it has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is trite law that every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence unless there is evidence of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken note of the unfortunate common practice for the police officer to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an F.I.R. for offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating; on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhat Ranjan Mallick & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:29068 wherein 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 reiterated the settled principle of law that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases the 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 cannot amount to cheating. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court in the said case further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Another, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in para-8 that when the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute, non-payment or under-payment of the price of the goods by itself, does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The dispute between the parties is at the most a civil dispute but a cloak of criminal case has been given to a purely civil dispute for realization of the money even though in the complaint which upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, the informant himself has stated that the petitioners are trying to misappropriate the property of the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 11. Learned Addl. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 11. 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 the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Awadhesh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2026:JHHC:2253 wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 paragraph-9 of which reads as under:- “ 9 . It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court laid down the premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The following observations made in the aforesaid decisions are a sound reminder: (SCC p. 379, para 103) “103. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court laid down the premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The following observations made in the aforesaid decisions are a sound reminder: (SCC p. 379, para 103) “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at the stage of consideration of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further submits that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then both the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 13. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 next submits that in the said case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dinesh Sharma v. Emgee Cables & Communications Ltd. & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 929 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that economic offences by their very nature lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between private parties and the High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 14. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 14. 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 as has been held by 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 paragraph-12 of which reads as under:- “ 12 . 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) that the amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the accused persons by the complainant and merely because the accused persons are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance amount paid. 15. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:- “ 6 .We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint and the orders of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Having taken into consideration all the material made available on record by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner are wholly unwarranted. The complaint is an abuse of the process of the court and the proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Even if all the averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct, yet the case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal Code is not made out. The complaint is an abuse of the process of the court and the proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Even if all the averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct, yet the case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal Code is not made out. The complaint does not make any averment so as to infer any fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been made by the petitioner pursuant to which the respondent parted with the money. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner does not have the property or that the petitioner was not competent to enter into an agreement to sell or could not have transferred title in the property to the respondent. Merely because an agreement to sell was entered into which agreement the petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be said that the petitioner has cheated the respondent. No case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 IPC is made out even prima facie. The complaint filed by the respondent and that too at Madhepura against the petitioner, who is a resident of Delhi, seems to be an attempt to pressurise the petitioner for coming to terms with the respondent.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that merely because an agreement to sell was entered into and which agreement, the accused person of the case failed to honour, it cannot be said that the seller has cheated the respondent and no case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 16. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner entered into an agreement for sell with the informant. The admitted agreement dated 28.02.2022, the copy of which has been filed by the petitioner wherein in clause 8 it has specifically been mentioned that the seller shall not file any case or proceeding in any court or office under the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act against the purchaser for claiming or demand any right, title, interest or possession in respect of the schedule below land or part thereof any time in future. So, this falsifies the case of the informant that the informant was not aware that the land in question is governed by the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. 17. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioners have already returned Rs.1,50,000/- in cash to the informant which is the only amount alleged to have been taken from the informant. There is no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of the property. There is no allegation against the petitioner playing deception since the very inception. In the absence of this essential ingredient of playing deception since the very inception, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 18. In the absence of any entrustment of the property or 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 against the petitioners even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. In view of the discussions made above as none of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate is made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case where the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Birsanagar P.S. Case No.89 of 2023 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 16.02.2024, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 20. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Birsanagar P.S. Case No.89 of 2023 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 16.02.2024, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 21. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.