Sachidanand Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Rambachan Singh, resident of Village –Nazirgunj v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shambhu Nath, son of Late Jagarnath Sahay, resident
Case Details
( 2025:JHHC:35272 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1170 of 2023 Sachidanand Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Rambachan Singh, resident of Village –Nazirgunj, P.O. & P.S. –Itkhori, District –Chatra. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shambhu Nath, son of Late Jagarnath Sahay, resident of Malviya Marg, P.O. & P.S. –Lohsinghna, District –Hazaribag. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sushant Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, Advocate : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2.
Facts
Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.01.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 1001 of 2021, whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Legal Reasoning
Hazaribagh has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the landed property of the complainant for which the 1 Cr.M.P. No.1170 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:35272 ) complainant executed a registered sale deed, the consideration amount of which was Rs.15,50,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner assured the complainant to transfer Rs.7,85,000/- to his account and on being so assured, the complainant executed the sale deed but the petitioner did not pay the said amount to the complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false and fabricated and even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Kishori Yadav & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another, reported in 2025:JHHC:29209 that therein this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that when the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute, 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. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are false and in fact the complainant cheated the petitioner by suppressing the material fact that out of the 117 decimals of land sold by the complainant 2 Cr.M.P. No.1170 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:35272 ) to the petitioner, the complainant earlier sold 9 decimals of land to another person. Thus, the land sold to the petitioner was only 108 decimals. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh ought not have taken cognizance of the offences when the complainant admitted before the Sub-Registrar that he has received the entire consideration amount in respect of which the sale deed was executed by him. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Section 406/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under :- 3 Cr.M.P. No.1170 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:35272 ) 6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 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) that in order to constitute the offence of cheating the accused person must have played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to deceive develops later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 419 nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663, paragraph-18 of which reads as under :- 4 Cr.M.P. No.1170 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:35272 ) “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 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) 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 persons but it must also be shown that the accused persons dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the consideration amount of the sale deed is Rs.15,50,000/- but the amount claimed to be due and payable is Rs.7,85,000/-. So, at best, it is a case of under payment of the property purchased by the petitioner. The undisputed fact remains that the complainant has admitted before the Sub- Registrar at the time of accepting execution of the sale deed for the purpose of its registration that he has received the entire consideration money. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record are insufficient to constitute 5 Cr.M.P. No.1170 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:35272 ) dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted money by the petitioner. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation 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. 11. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences punishable under Section 406/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.01.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 1001 of 2021, whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.01.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 1001 of 2021, whereby and where under the learned 6 Cr.M.P. No.1170 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:35272 ) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 13.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th November, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 03/12/2025 7 Cr.M.P. No.1170 of 2023