(2026:JHHC:3351 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No. 4057 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 4057 of 2019 Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal @ Kanhiya Lal Jaiswal, Aged about 49 years, son of Late Bijay Kumar Jaiswal, Resident of Shree Nagar Colony, Near Sabji Bagan Manaitand Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Jha, son of Naresh Jha, Resident of Sabji Bagan, Gandhi Nagar, Manaitand, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad. 3. Arun Kumar Yadav, son of Awdhesh Yadav, Resident of Gandhi Nagar, Manaitand, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad. 4. Sintu Pillai, son of Bhaskar Pillai, Resident of Rifujee Market, Near Shambhu Dharamshala, Temple Road Purana Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Bank-More, District Dhanbad ... Opposite Parties --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. Nos.2 to 4 : None --------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. (2026:JHHC:3351 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No. 4057 of 2019 2. Though notices have been validly served upon the opposite party no. 2 to 4, no one turns up on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 03.10.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 233 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the revision application was dismissed and also to quash the order dated 15.07.2019, passed in complaint case no. 2172 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad. 4. The brief facts of the case is that thepetitioner filed Complaint Case No. 2172 of 2018 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, alleging therein that the private opposite parties of this Cr. M.P. cheated him and committed criminal breach of trust by deceiving him to sell half of his property and so that the private opposite parties will ensure payment of compensation of Rupees 2 crore to the complainant-petitioner and consequently, the complainant- petitioner executed three registered sale deeds in favour of the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 for the consideration amount of Rupees 4 lakhs which consideration amount has been mentioned in the Sale Deedsdated 05.03.2016. The learned (2026:JHHC:3351 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No. 4057 of 2019 Judicial Magistrate considered that since the complainant has failed to establish essential ingredients like entrustment of property against the accused persons, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and as the complainant-petitioner has admitted receiving the consideration amount in the sale deeds, so the offence punishable under Section 420 is also not made out and in the absence of any allegation of assault, wrongful restraint or criminal intimidation, the rest offences are also not made out and dismissed the complaint. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2019 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, petitioner filed the Cr. Revision No. 233 of 2019 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad but the learned Sessions Judge considered that no case of misrepresentation, deception or fraudulent transfer of land is made out and concurred with the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in the said case and dismissed the said criminal revision. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below without application of judicial mind have rejected the complaint case and the criminal revision petition, respectively and instead of holding that there is a prima facie case for the offences committed by the accused, dismissed the complaint and revision, respectively. Hence, it is (2026:JHHC:3351 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No. 4057 of 2019 submitted that the prayer as prayed for in the criminal miscellaneous petition, be allowed. 7. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer made in the criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that since none of the offences are made out on the basis of the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the criminal revision, hence, the criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materialsin the record, it is pertinent to mention here that summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. M/s India Infoline Limited, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 1906. 9. It is also a settled principle of law as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited & Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 which has been reiterated in Pooja Ravinder vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2014) 16 SCC 1 wherein it is stated that the (2026:JHHC:3351 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No. 4057 of 2019 Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses. The Magistrate has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof, and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing home the charge to the accused. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the complainant that he has executed three registered sale deeds and in the registered sale deeds he has admitted receiving the consideration amount mentioned in each of the sale deeds. It is his case that accused persons have cheated the complainant but no documentary evidence could be filed by the complainant before the learned Magistrate but since it is an admitted case of the complainant that he has executed registered sale deeds and admittedly taken the consideration amount, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate or that of the learned Sessions Judge by holding that no offence is made out against the proposed accused persons of the case. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as (2026:JHHC:3351 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No. 4057 of 2019 prayed for by the petitioner in the criminal miscellaneous petition be acceded to in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., accordingly this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: February 9, 2026 N.A.F.R./Pramanik Uploaded on 17/02/2026.