[2026:JHHC:9629] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 793 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 793 of 2026 Rakesh Bhushan Singh, Aged about 52 years, S/o Late Chandra Bhushan Narayan Singh, Resident of Flat No.2B, 2nd Floor, Krish Palace, Road No.1/A, Bosco Nagar, Hatiya, Hatiya Namkum Ranchi, Ρ.Ο.-Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi-834003 ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. PP 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 BNSS with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR arising out of East Tundi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Circle Officer, East Tundi, Dhanbad was instrumental in Mutation of the land in connivance and aid of the Co-accused persons in criminal conspiracy to fulfill his own personal benefit even though the land mutated in favour of the co-accused persons, belonged to the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rishipal Singh vs. [2026:JHHC:9629] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 793 of 2026 State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2014) 7 SCC 215 submits that in the facts of that case, when the Branch Manager of the bank allegedly violated the instructions in the complainant in letter and spirit, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that it all amounts to negligence in discharging the official work and at the maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty but the same is not sufficient to constitute any offence punishable in law. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur (Smt.) and Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 223 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title, it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue in question. 7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming for the sake of argument, though not admitting, that the allegations against the petitioner to be true but in the absence of any entrustment of any property to the petitioner or dishonest misappropriation of the same, the offence punishable under Sections 408, 409 of IPC is not made out. It is then submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the very inception or any allegation against the petitioner of deceiving anyone or inducing anyone to part with any property, offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC is not made out. It is next submitted that in the absence of any allegation of making any false document, the offence punishable under Sections 467,468 or 471 of IPC is not made out, even with the aid of section 120B of IPC. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute each of the offences under the penal [2026:JHHC:9629] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 793 of 2026 provisions of law, in respect of which FIR has been registered against the petitioner. 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 going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner got the land mutated in favour of the accused on the basis of the sale deeds executed in their favour. The undisputed fact remains, as admitted by the informant in the FIR itself, that the petitioner recommended for cancellation of the sale deed and Jama Bandi recorded in favour of the informant, as he found the same to have been done by suppressing the current (hal) Record of Rights and on the basis of old (savik) Record of Rights. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner has committed any error in passing any order of mutation, certainly the same has been committed by him in discharge of his official duty, so in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rishipal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra), the same at the most can be said to be a dereliction of duty by the petitioner but certainly the same by itself will not constitute any offence punishable by any penal provisions of law. 10. Now coming to the offences in respect of which FIR has been registered, this Court, after going through the materials in the record, is of the considered view that there is no allegation against the petitioner of entrustment any property by anyone nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of dishonest mis- appropriation of any property and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that neither the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC is made out. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, it is a settled principle of law, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma [2026:JHHC:9629] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 793 of 2026 Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 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) 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 very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of inducing anybody to deceive or to part with any property, hence in the absence of this essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, this Court is of the considered that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. 13. So far as the offences punishable under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is concerned, to constitute each of such offences, the essential ingredient is forgery i.e. making of false documents. There is no allegation against the petitioner of making a false document and in absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegation against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still none of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner; even with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. 14. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which FIR has been registered is made out against the petitioner, even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that [2026:JHHC:9629] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 793 of 2026 continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR arising out of East Tundi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2022 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR arising out of East Tundi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2022 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 16. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 1st April, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 07.04.2026