2026:JHHC:3312 1 Cr. M.P. No.4147 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4147 of 2023 ------ 1. Dilip Kundlia, aged about 45 yrs. S/o Jugraj Kundalia 2. Jitendra Kundlia @ Jeetendra Kumar Kundlia, aged about 49 years, S/o Jugraj Kundalia. Both R/o 28 Agarlata Street, Kajaria Market, Second Floor, Room No. 201 B, P.O. & P.S. Agarlata Street, Dist. Kolkata (W.B.) … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prabhat Kumar, aged about 22 years, S/o Sri Sachidanand Soni, R/o Rahergora, P.O. Nagnagar, P.S. Barwadda, Dist. Dhanbad. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, 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 Criminal Procedure Code, with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 6047 of 2022 including the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the J.M.F.C. Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has found prime facie case involving the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2026:JHHC:3312 2 Cr. M.P. No.4147 of 2023 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners along with the co- accused persons induced the complainant and proposed the complainant that if the complainant pays Rs. 2,00,000/- to their company, namely, O.J.B. Herbals Pvt. Ltd., then they will ensure appointment of the complainant as the super distributor. Thereafter, the complainant transferred Rs. 2,00,000/- to the bank account of the said company. After one month, the company sent articles worth Rs. 1,99,280/- to the complainant and also assured to send the super distributor certificate but did not send the same. It is also alleged that, thereafter the petitioners further told the complainant to send Rs. 25,000/- to the account of the company and accordingly, the complainant sent Rs. 25,000/- to the account of company. After one month, they again told the complainant to deposit Rs. 60,000/-which amount was sent by the complainant. In lieu of the aforesaid payment of money by the complainant, the petitioners along with co-accused persons through their employee sent articles worth Rs. 1,36,351 to be sold in the market. While the articles worth Rs. 2,26,611.62 were still lying in the godown of the complainant. The company did not appoint the complainant as distributor as promised, nor the complainant was given the super distributorship certificate, due to which the complainant was not able to get the commission for the articles, nor the capital amount invested in the company has been returned to him. The co-accused persons also took five cheques from the complainant as security money. It is further alleged that both the petitioners are the Managing Directors of the accused company. Since the petitioners 2026:JHHC:3312 3 Cr. M.P. No.4147 of 2023 along with co-accused persons were neither appointing the complainant as distributor, nor issuing him the super distributorship certificate as promised nor refunding the invested amount, hence, being aggrieved, the complainant filed the Complaint Case No. 6047 of 2022 before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of having personally done any act of inducement. It is next submitted that the Director or Managing Director of company cannot be held liable for the acts of the company, in the absence of any direct or specific allegation against them of having committed any overt act. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naresh Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2024: INSC:196 wherein the apex court relied upon the judgment of that court in the case of Randheer Singh vs The State of U.P. reported in 2021:INSC: 440 and observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. It is then submitted that in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its judgment in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in 2023:INSC:86 wherein it was held that when a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such dispute can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2026:JHHC:3312 4 Cr. M.P. No.4147 of 2023 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Maya Rani vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025:JHHC:19884, submits that in that case, this Court 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 6 of which reads as under “6. Xxxxx 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 reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 6. It is next submitted that admittedly the complainant was having business transaction with the company of the petitioners for a considerable period of time. Hence there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the very transaction. Hence, 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 IPC is not made out. It is lastly submitted that since no offence is made out against the petitioners of 2026:JHHC:3312 5 Cr. M.P. No.4147 of 2023 which cognizance has been taken by the learned J.M.F.C., Dhanbad, even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P, be allowed. 7. The learned Addl. P.P as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that if the entire allegation made against the petitioners is considered to be true in their entirety, then the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the petitioners as the petitioners have retained the five cheques of the complainant which was given as security and have not returned those cheques to the complainant. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of committing any overt act. They had been implicated in this case only because they were Managing Directors of the accused company. There is no allegation that there was any interaction between the petitioners and the complainant at any time during the business transaction between the complainant with the company of the petitioners. There is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of having made any deception since the very inception. Admittedly, the complainant was having business relationship with the company of the petitioners for considerable period of time. Under such circumstances, this Court is of 2026:JHHC:3312 6 Cr. M.P. No.4147 of 2023 the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in the entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Therefore, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 6047 of 2022 including the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the J.M.F.C. Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has found prime facie case involving the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petitioner is allowed (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of February, 2026 AFR/ Rashmi Uploaded on 17/02/2026