(2026:JHHC:3268) 1 Cr. M.P. No.4063 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4063 of 2018 ------ 1. Puran Nag Modak, Aged about 45 years, S/o – Late Khudu Modak, 2. Chiranjit Nag Modak, Aged about 25 years, S/o- Puran Nag Modak, Both are resident of Village – Ankdwara, P.O. – Ankdwara, P.S. – Nirsa, District- Dhanbad … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Saqlain Quraishi, S/o – Late Salim Quaraishi, Resident of Shamsher Nagar, P.O. – ‘B’ Polytechnic, P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sandip Kr. Barnwal, 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No.382 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code and has passed summoning order. (2026:JHHC:3268) 2 Cr. M.P. No.4063 of 2018 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the complainant gave a friendly loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1 in the year 2010 but the petitioner No.1 did not repay the same and an agreement was prepared in the year 2016 in which it was mentioned that the petitioner No.1 will be liable for the payment of the money even after his death. In the year 2017, the complainant met the petitioners and demanded money, the petitioners assaulted him, committed theft and abused him. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has not yet been framed against the petitioner and the case is next fixed before the learned Magistrate on 25.02.2026 for appearance of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (A Govt. of India Enterprises) & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2023 4 JLJR 1440 and submits that this Court in that case relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 paragraph-18 of which reads as under:- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald (2026:JHHC:3268) 3 Cr. M.P. No.4063 of 2018 allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused person but it must also be shown that the accused person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the accused person did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is further submitted that the complainant could not produce any agreement nor any scrap of paper to support his case. It is next submitted that keeping in view the admitted fact that the earning of the complainant was only Rs.15,000- 20,000/- per month, it is highly unlikely that he would have paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of seven (7) years; much after the period of limitation for realization of money claimed to have been paid by the complainant, by filing a civil suit; was over. It is also submitted that this false case has been foisted only for the purpose of wreaking (2026:JHHC:3268) 4 Cr. M.P. No.4063 of 2018 vengeance but even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners 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 petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. 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 petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 paragraph-11 and 13 of which read as under:- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment. 13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under (2026:JHHC:3268) 5 Cr. M.P. No.4063 of 2018 Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” (Emphasis supplied) has reiterated the settled principle of law that a mere breach of promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust and mere inability of the accused person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent and dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning. 9. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of committing any dishonest misappropriation of the property or converting the property to his own use or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract. In the absence of this essential ingredient and in the absence of any fraudulent or dishonest intention shown right at the beginning of the transaction between parties, 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 offence punishable under Section 406 of the (2026:JHHC:3268) 6 Cr. M.P. No.4063 of 2018 Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No.382 of 2017, be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No.382 of 2017, is quashed and set aside only against the petitioners named above. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of February, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 16/02/2026