[2026:JHHC:3766] 1 Cr. M.P. No.3145 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3145 of 2024 ------ 1. Akash Kumar age about 36 years S/O Arjun Prasad Sao. 2. Chandrawati Devi age about 56 years W/O Arjun Prasad Sao. 3. Afjal Hussain age about 50 years S/O Abid Husain. All R/O Village- Asnabad, P.O.- Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.- Telaiya, District- Koderma. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Badri Sao S/O Late Kishun Sao R/O Village- Asnabad, P.O.- Jhumari Telaiya, P.S.- Telaiya, District- Koderma … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- 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 F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.25 of 2024 of the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No.2 filed Complaint Case No. 2195 of 2023 in the court of the learned Judicial [2026:JHHC:3766] 2 Cr. M.P. No.3145 of 2024 Magistrate-1st Class, Koderma which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Telaiya P.S. Case No. 25 of 2024 has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is going on and charge has not yet been submitted by the police in this case. 5. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell their land for Rs.47,50,000/- and the petitioner No.1 with the consent of the petitioner No.2 received Rs.25,99,000/- with a promise to execute the sale deed within two months but did not execute the sale deed. The allegation against the petitioner No.3 is that he was the witness to the agreement for sale entered into between the petitioner No.1 and 2 along with one Bundiya Devi on one part and the complainant on the other part. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 and submits that therein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that merely the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. It is then submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. There is no allegation of any omission or commission on the part of the petitioner No.2 to constitute any offence against him. It is then submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true [2026:JHHC:3766] 3 Cr. M.P. No.3145 of 2024 in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this 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 petitioners made in this Cr.M.P. and submit that the allegations made in the FIR if considered to be true in their entirety, then both the offences punishable under Sections 420 as well as 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, paragraph No.10 of which reads as under:- “10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )” (emphasis supplied) [2026:JHHC:3766] 4 Cr. M.P. No.3145 of 2024 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. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. It is also a settled principle of law 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, para-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 merely because the accused persons are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have taken advance amount but not registered any sale deed. 11. In view of the settled principle of law in the case of Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another (supra) and also in the case of [2026:JHHC:3766] 5 Cr. M.P. No.3145 of 2024 Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra), this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still 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 against the petitioners. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.25 of 2024 of the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 12. Accordingly, the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.25 of 2024 of the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of February, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 16/02/2026