1. Shyam Narayan Mishra, S/o Late Ved Vayas Mishra, aged about 58 years 2 v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1217 of 2024 ------ 1. Shyam Narayan Mishra, S/o Late Ved Vayas Mishra, aged about 58 years 2. Usha Mishra, W/o Shyam Narayan Mishra, Aged about 57 years Both R/o Village Jagda, PO & PS Jhirpani, District Sundargah (Odisha) … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the Informant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Avishek Prasad, 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 with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. being Namkum P.S. Case No.186 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code along with the entire criminal proceedings of the said case, and the said case is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners informed the informant that they will sell their land through co-accused Rahul Ranjan and the informant entered into an agreement for sale with the co-accused Rahul Ranjan by paying him Rs.3,00,000/- and from time-to-time for personal expenses of Rahul Ranjan, the informant used to pay him some money with the 1 Cr. M.P. No.1217 of 2024 assurance of Rahul Ranjan that if he fails to pay the money taken from the informant then the same will be adjusted at the time of registration of the land and once the wife of Rahul Ranjan namely Archana Kumari Gupta returned Rs.20,001/- to the informant also through Google Pay. It is also alleged that prior to the agreement, the informant paid Rs.20,230/- to the petitioner No.1 on 29.09.2020 before the execution of the said agreement between the informant with Rahul Ranjan dated 07.10.2020. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though as per the agreement, the copy of which has been annexed with the F.I.R., it has been mentioned that the co-accused Rahul Ranjan has entered into the agreement for sale as the power of attorney holder of the petitioner No.2 but neither any power of attorney has been brought on record nor any reference of any power of attorney that is the date of such power of attorney or any other details has been mentioned anywhere, in the F.I.R.or any other document of the informant. It is submitted that in fact, neither of the petitioners, either individually or jointly, have ever executed any power of attorney in favour of Rahul Ranjan. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners of cheating the informant or anybody else and only because the co- accused Rahul Ranjan posed himself to be a power of attorney holder of the petitioner No.2, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioners have not received any money from the informant or Rahul Ranjan. It is further submitted that had the informant paid some money to the petitioner No.1 on 29.09.2020, the same must have been taken into account and mentioned in the alleged agreement dated 07.10.2020 entered into between the co-accused Rahul Ranjan and the informant- Naresh 2 Cr. M.P. No.1217 of 2024 Kumar Sahu. It is next submitted that even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted, though not admitted, that the petitioner No.1 has received Rs.20,230/- but the same will not constitute any offence punishable in law; more so where there is no document regarding entrustment of said money to the petitioners. It is next submitted that this false case has been foisted against the petitioners to part with their property with the aid of the co-accused Rahul Ranjan, with whom the petitioners are in no way concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nidhi Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.3448 of 2021 dated 8th of May, 2024 and submits that in that case this Court reiterated the settled principle of law 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 and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:- “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) and in the said case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah 3 Cr. M.P. No.1217 of 2024 vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 in paragraph-11 of which it was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a mere breach of promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 I.P.C. without there being a clear case of entrustment. 6. It is next submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of having any intention to deceive the informant since the very inception of the transaction between the parties rather it is the case of the informant that agreement for sale having been entered into by the informant with the co-accused Rahul Ranjan; with whom he was having series of monetary transactions, for the personal expenses of Rahul Ranjan, which goes to show the admitted closeness of the informant with Rahul Ranjan. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property to the petitioners and in the absence of that, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the co-accused persons specifically against the co-accused Rahul Ranjan, hence, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings be quashed and set aside. Therefore, 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, so far as the petitioners of 4 Cr. M.P. No.1217 of 2024 this case are concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of having played any deception since the inception of alleged transaction between the parties. In fact, there is no written proof of entrustment of money to either of the petitioners or that the petitioners have entered into any agreement for sale with the informant. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners and in the absence of any allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. In the absence of any material to suggest that there was a meeting of mind between the petitioners with the co-accused person and in the absence of any overt act to suggest the same, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioners. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the F.I.R. of Namkum P.S. Case No.186 of 2023 along with the entire criminal proceedings of the said case which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the F.I.R. of Namkum P.S. Case No.186 of 2023 along with the entire criminal proceedings of the said case which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above only. 5 Cr. M.P. No.1217 of 2024 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th of July, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 6 Cr. M.P. No.1217 of 2024