[2026:JHHC:3765] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2191 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2191 of 2023 ------ Abdul Hakim @ Abdul Hakem @ Hakeem Ansari, aged about 45 years, S/o Ishaque Ansari @ Isaque Ansari, R/o Village- Simaliya, P.O.- Tilta, P.S.- Ratu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Abid Hussain, aged about 53 years, S/o Late Md. Siddique, Office address Village- Pokhrikala, P.O.- Betla, P.S.- Barwadih, District- Latehar and Permanent address B 192, Basant Bihar Colony, Village & P.O.- Bachra, P.S.- Piparwar, Tandwa, Chatra, Jharkhand- 825321 … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate Ms. Neelam Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. For the OP No.2 : Md. Razaullah Ansari, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the Complaint Case No. 1589 of 2022 including the order dated 03.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the [2026:JHHC:3765] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2191 of 2023 offences punishable under Sections 406, 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused namely Md. Taj and Md. Taj executed a sale deed in respect of the land in favour of the complainant but later on, some other persons claimed ownership of the said property and when the complainant approached the petitioner and the co-accused person, they told the complainant to pay Rs.20,00,000/- more. It is also alleged that the land in question is a Bhoodan land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main allegation is against the co-accused person namely Md. Taj. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner executed the power of attorney in favour of Md. Taj. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. There is no allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioner nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the allegation of threatening is only against the co- accused – Md. Taj. There is no allegation against the petitioner of threatening or putting the complainant or anyone else in fear of any injury. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. [2026:JHHC:3765] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2191 of 2023 5. Learned Spl.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 this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the allegation against the petitioner is sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Section 406, 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 2248, para-36 of which reads as under:- “36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the nonpayment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 & Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]” (emphasis supplied) that for non-payment of the consideration amount of a sale of goods, there can be civil remedy for non-payment of the consideration amount but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. Therein, it was [2026:JHHC:3765] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2191 of 2023 also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller and when the goods are delivered to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, this is the case of sale of a land. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has executed a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused person namely Md. Taj who upon taking consideration amount from the complainant, has executed the sale deed transferring whatsoever ownership of the land, he was having, to the complainant. There is no allegation against the petitioner of being involved personally in the alleged sale transaction between the co-accused – Md. Taj and the complainant. In the absence of that, it cannot be said that the petitioner was entrusted with any property and in the absence of the same even if the entire materials available in the record are considered to be true in their entirety, it cannot be said that the petitioner was entrusted with any property as the word ‘entrusted’ has been used in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of any entrustment or dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property 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 petitioner even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the allegation of the same is only against the [2026:JHHC:3765] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2191 of 2023 co-accused – Md. Taj. There is no allegation against the petitioner of putting the complainant or anyone else in fear of any injury. 9. Under such circumstances, 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 the same is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the Complaint Case No. 1589 of 2022 including the order dated 03.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 11. Accordingly, the Complaint Case No. 1589 of 2022 including the order dated 03.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of February, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 16/02/2026