[2026:JHHC:9911] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2469 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2469 of 2020 ------ 1. Pankaj Jain @ Pankaj Rajkumar Yambal, aged about 45 years, son of Rajkumar Nagoba Yambal; 2. Nishikant Jain @ Nishikant Rajkumar Yambal, aged about 52 years, son of Rajkumar Nagoba Yambal; 3. Rajneesh Jain, aged about 43 years, son of Abhay Kumar Nagoba Yambal; All residents of 402, N-3, CIDCO, Post Office- Aurangabad, Police Station- Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad (Maharashtra). … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Avishek Bagaria, aged about 38 years, son of Dr. Deepak Kumar Bagaria, Director, Sri Venkateshwara Electrocast Pvt; Ltd., Court Road (Opposite Bank of India), P.O. & P.S.- Giridih (T), District- Giridih (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Mukul Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V For the OP No.2 : Mr. Yogesh Modi, 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 [2026:JHHC:9911] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2469 of 2020 Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No. 1326 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners, being the directors of M/s Sydler Packs; which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, took some articles from the complainant worth Rs.63,76,368/- but paid only Rs.30,48,293/- and did not pay the remaining amount; by way of cheating. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has passed the summoning order as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court towards I.A. No. 3917 of 2026 and submits that the matter was sent for mediation and the petitioners have paid the entire amount of Rs.24,00,000/- in installments to the company of the complainant after filing of this case. It is next submitted that this interlocutory application is only supported by the affidavit of the petitioners but the informant has not signed the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjit Ganpat Chougule @ Ranjit Chougule [2026:JHHC:9911] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2469 of 2020 & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another and allied case reported in 2025:JHHC:23641 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta & Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home & Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, para- 27 of which reads as under:- “27. We find it strange that the complainant has not made any attempt for the recovery of the money of rupees one crore except by filing this criminal complaint. This action appears to be mala fide and unsustainable.” and submits that if a person is entitled to get some money from the accused person of the case but did not file any civil proceeding for recovery of the same but only files a criminal case, such action appears to be mala fide. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vesa Holdings Private Limited vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 283, para-12 of which reads as under:- “12. From the decisions cited by the appellant, the settled proposition of law is 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 other words for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be said to have been made out.” (Emphasis supplied) [2026:JHHC:9911] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2469 of 2020 and submits 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. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is then submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal case has been given to a purely civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 8. Learned counsel 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 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the allegations made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are sufficient to constitute each of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. 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 Vir Prakash [2026:JHHC:9911] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2469 of 2020 Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Another 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.” that non-payment or under-payment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 10. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners made under-payment of the goods purchased by them. The dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. There is no allegation against any of the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transactions between the parties. Hence, 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 the Indian Penal Code is not made out even with the aid of Section 120B of [2026:JHHC:9911] 6 Cr. M.P. No.2469 of 2020 the Indian Penal Code. 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 entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No. 1326 of 2017, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No. 1326 of 2017, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 13. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No. 3917 of 2026 is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 07th of April, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 13/04/2026