[ 2026:JHHC:22108] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2375 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2375 of 2025 1. Vimli Devi @ Vimla Devi @ Bimla Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o Uday Nath Pathak 2. Ramanand Pathak @ Ramanand @ Ramanandan Pathak, aged about 37 years, S/o Uday Nath Pathak, both permanent resident of village- Panjari Khurd, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.- Vishrampur, Dist.- Palamau at present resident of Chiyanki Krishi Bibhag, Daltonganj, P.O.- Daltonganj, P.S.- Daltonganj (Town), Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Santosh Tiwari, son of Late Baliram Tiwari, resident of village- Rerdma, P.O.- Chiyanki, P.S.- Medininagar, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Sandhya Singh, Adv. Mr. Shravan Kumar, Adv. For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : None P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No. 10002 of 2026 Heard the parties. Though the opp. Party no. 2 has put in his appearance through a lawyer but no one turns up on behalf of the opp. Party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) [ 2026:JHHC:22108] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2375 of 2025 Cr.M.P. No. 2375 of 2025 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2023 passed by learned CJM, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. case no. 98 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. case no. 1901 of 2023 involving the offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 120B of IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners purchased a piece of land from the complainant and the complainant executed a registered Sale Deed. Subsequently, the petitioner expressed their desire not to purchase the said land and demanded their money back and agreed to convey the ownership of the property sold by the complainant, back to the complainant. The petitioners further received Rs. 10,00,000/- which was transferred to the accounts of the petitioner no. 2, who is the son of the petitioner no. 1 but the petitioners are not taking the remaining 5,20,000/- nor conveying the ownership of the said plot, back to the complainant. The complainant filed Complaint Case no. 995 of 2022 in the court of learned CJM, Palamau at Daltonganj and the same after being referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of CrPC, the FIR of this case has been registered and the police took up the investigation of the case. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC and basing upon the same, learned CJM Palamau at Daltonganj has taken cognizance of the said offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of Ashok Agrawal and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2023: JHHC:20012 submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of [ 2026:JHHC:22108] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2375 of 2025 Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, para 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) Wherein, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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. 5. It is further submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph no. 11 of which reads as under :- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further, it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2, had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment.(Emphasis supplied) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that a mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC, without there being a clear case of entrustment. 6. 6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. And Ors. Vs. State of Uttar [ 2026:JHHC:22108] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2375 of 2025 Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 para-36 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC which reads as under :- (1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; (2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or (3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. and went on to hold that if it is the case of complainant that the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC, punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breadth, it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained under Section 415 of IPC. 7. It is next submitted that the informant has cheated the petitioner no. 1 knowing it full well that plot no. 2018 is not recorded in Khata no. 423, in a planned manner and committed fraud. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences under any penal provision of law, is made out against the petitioners, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. Learned Spl. PP on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing both the offences of cheating and the criminal breach of trust, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to [ 2026:JHHC:22108] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2375 of 2025 mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is that the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the complainant that there was a sale deed executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner no. 1, in which, the petitioner no. 2 has no role to play. Subsequently, the petitioner no. 1 wanted her money back and was ready to reconvey the right, title and interest accrued in her favour by execution of the sale deed by the complainant. So, under such circumstances, it can very well be said that this is a case where there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out, even with the aid of Section 120 B of IPC. 11. So far as Section 406 of IPC is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners took back Rs. 10,00,000/- of the consideration amount, paid by them for purchasing the land in question but did not receive the remaining amount and did not execute the sale deed. In order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, the essential ingredients is that there must be an entrustment and there must be dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of legal direction or of legal contract, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641 . 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioners is that in terms of an oral agreement, the informant [ 2026:JHHC:22108] 6 Cr.M.P. No. 2375 of 2025 paid back Rs. 10,00,000 to the petitioner no. 1 through bank account of the petitioner no. 2 but the petitioner did not take back the remaining amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- though as per the sale deed, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 2, of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the consideration amount was Rs. 16,25,000/-. So, upon the admitted payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- the petitioners were further to pay Rs. 6,25,000/- but it is the case of the complainant that only Rs. 5,20,000/- was outstanding to be paid. Be that as it may, the refunding of money by the vendor of the sale to the purchaser, cannot be termed as entrusted property as the word ‘entrusted’ has been used under section 405 of IPC, the punishment of which has been provided in section 406 of IPC. Further, there is absolutely no allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is also not made out; even with the aid of Section 120 B of IPC. 14. In view of the discussions made above, as neither the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is made out even with the aid of section 120B of the IPC against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2023 passed by learned CJM, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. case no. 98 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. case no. 1901 of 2023 be quashed and set aside. 15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2023 passed by learned CJM, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. [ 2026:JHHC:22108] 7 Cr.M.P. No. 2375 of 2025 case no. 98 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. case no. 1901 of 2023, is quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 23rd July, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 29.07.2026