[2026:JHHC:5589] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 3554 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3554 of 2023 Ranjit Kumar Ghosal, aged about 50 years, son of Late Ajit Kumar Ghosal, resident of Village Kharkhari Basti, P.O. Kharkhare, P.S. Madhuban, Dist. Dhanbad ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Kumar Sultania, son of Shri Binod Kumar Sultania, resident of Maheshmara, Baijnathpur, P.O. Malhara, P.S. Rikhia, Dist. Deoghar ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. P.D.Agrawal, Spl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vineet Prakash , Adv. 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 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.09.2022 in connection with Complaint Case no. 431 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned JMFC, Deoghar found prima facie case against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used to take iron rods from the company, of which the complainant is the Director and in course of the business, a sum of Rs. 1,97,494/- was due and payable by the petitioner to the complainant which he did not pay even after receipt of the pleader’s notice, hence, the complainant filed the complaint case. Learned JMFC, Deoghar on the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant, on Solemn Affirmation, the statement of the inquiry witnesses, found [2026:JHHC:5589] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 3554 of 2023 prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC against the petitioner and passed the summoning order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of Mr. Gunjan Koushik vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another dated 23.11.2023 passed in CrMP no. 2050 of 2022 and submits that in that case, this court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Dalip Kaur and Ors. v. Jagnar Singh and another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, para 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) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that if the dispute between the parties, is essentially a civil dispute, resulting from breach of contract, by not refunding the amount of advance money, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating and the similar is the legal position in respect of the offence of criminal breach of trust, having regard to the definition contained in Section 405 of the IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in that case, this court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Vijay Kumar Ghai and Ors. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124, para 24 and 25 of which reads as under :- “24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. 25. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] noticed the [2026:JHHC:5589] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 3554 of 2023 prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further observed that : (Indian Oil Corpn. case [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , SCC p. 749, para 13) “13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has cautioned the criminal courts to prevent its misuse by converting purely civil dispute to a criminal case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in that case, this court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph no. 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 held 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 will not amount to cheating. 7. It is next submitted that in this case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the inception rather it is the admitted case of the complainant that there was commercial transactions between the petitioner and the company of the complainant for a considerable period of time and the outstanding dues accumulated over a period of time and not by a single transaction, hence, in the absence of any allegation [2026:JHHC:5589] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 3554 of 2023 against the petitioner of playing deception since very inception, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner, hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through 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 Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373, para -8 of which reads as under: - “8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus: “405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’.” Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that when the dispute between the parties, is essentially a civil dispute, the Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of any offence. [2026:JHHC:5589] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 3554 of 2023 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner did not pay some of the outstanding amount due and payable to the company of which, the complainant is the Director, accumulated over a period of time and from the allegations made, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the inception rather it is a case of under payment of price of the goods. 11. In view of the settled principles of law discussed above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this Court is of the considered view 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, hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.09.2022 in connection with Complaint Case no. 431 of 2021 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.09.2022 in connection with Complaint Case no. 431 of 2021, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 25th February, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 27.02.2026