1. Punam Gupta @ Poonam Gupta, W/o Pravesh Gupta, Aged about 53 years; 2 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manish Gupta, Proprietor M/S Rajnish Books and Stationary
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:38718] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1867 of 2019 1. Punam Gupta @ Poonam Gupta, W/o Pravesh Gupta, Aged about 53 years; 2. Pratik Gupta, S/o Sri Pravesh Gupta, aged about 31 years, Proprietor M/s P.P. Publication, Both are R/o M/S P. P. Publication, A-18/2, Plot no. 70, Ramaroad, Industrial Area, New Delhi 110015, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Ramaroad, District New Delhi ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manish Gupta, Proprietor M/S Rajnish Books and Stationary opposite K.B. Girls School Metrogali, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. ….. Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2614 of 2019 Praveen Ranjan @ Praveen Kumar Ranjan, Aged about 35 years, S/o Late Sahdew Singh R/o Village Majhgawan, P.O. & P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra. Presently residing at Village Geswe, P.S. Budhmu, P.O. Turmuli, District Ranchi. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manish Gupta, S/o not known to the petitioner, Proprietor M/S Rajnish Books and Stationary opposite K.B. Girls School Metrogali, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Abahy Kr. Tiwari , Addl. PP Ms. Amrita Kumari , Addl. PP : Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu , Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. Since both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed with common prayer, 1 Cr.M.P. Nos. 1867 of 2019 with 2614 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:38718] hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are being
Decision
disposed of with this common judgment. 2. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 22.11.2018 arising out of Complaint Case no. 862 of 2017 in which, learned JMFC, Ranchi, has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 / 34 of the IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners entered into a business transaction with the opposite party no. 2 and issued firstly, non –CTS cheque and later on, issued a CTS cheque and as per the requirement of the company, the non-CTS cheque was not returned to the petitioner rather the same was used by the complainant for withdrawing money from the bank account of the petitioners. As the cheque was dishonoured the opposite party no. 2 filed Complaint case no. 862 of 2017 against the petitioners in the court of JMFC, Ranchi and the allegation against the petitioner of CrMP no. 2614 of 2019 is that he is the Agent of the co-accused petitioners of CrMP 1867 of 2019 Punam Gupta @ Poonam Gupta and Pratik Gupta. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact, the petitioners of this case are aggrieved persons and the petitioner no. 1 being Punam Gupta @ Poonam Gupta of Cr.MP no. 1867 of 2019 has already filed Complaint Case being C.C. No.17212 of 2016 before the learned court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West Delhi, Tis Hazari courts, Delhi against the Opp. Party no. 2- Complainant of this case, for having committed the offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I.Act for realization of sum of Rs. 8,37,845/-wherefor the complainant issued a cheque of Rs. 8,10,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, which upon being presented in the bank, was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund. 2 Cr.M.P. Nos. 1867 of 2019 with 2614 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:38718] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Angad Kumar Pandey vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2023 Supreme (JHK) 1096 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168, para -15 of which reads as under: - “15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, between the parties. In that case, this court also relied upon the upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India of Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373, para -8 of which reads as under: - “8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus: “405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or 3 Cr.M.P. Nos. 1867 of 2019 with 2614 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:38718] wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’.” Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further observed that when the dispute between the parties, is essentially a civil dispute, the Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of any offence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of Satyabhama Dubey @ Satyabhama Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2024 Suprme (JHK) 171, wherein 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 & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:- “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) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that mere 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 right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of Nirmal Oraon Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025:JHHC:34403 wherein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401 and submits that in paragraph no.10 thereof, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- 4 Cr.M.P. Nos. 1867 of 2019 with 2614 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:38718] “10. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Merely because the original accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or might not have paid the amount in lieu of one month’s notice before terminating the agreement by itself cannot be aid to be a cheating and or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as alleged. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.” Wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that non- payment of the amount due and payable under an agreement itself cannot constitute the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 8. In that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. The State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 paragraph-13 of which reads as under:- “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.”(Emphasis supplied) Wherein the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 5 Cr.M.P. Nos. 1867 of 2019 with 2614 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:38718] 9. It is next submitted that 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, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions be allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the State appearing for the State and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC, hence, it is submitted that these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. 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 there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties rather the transaction of the parties continued for a considerable period of time and the opp. party no. 2 issued a cheque which bears his signature which was dishonoured and after notice was issued by the petitioners to the opp. party no. 2, the opp. party no. 2 did not pay the amount nor even replied to the said notice demanding the payment of the cheque amount, so it is apparent that this case has been filed only to set up a defence by the opp. party in the cheque bouncing case. 12. Under such circumstances this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation against the petitioners are considered to be true still the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC is not made out and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law hence these are the fit cases where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 22.11.2018 arising out of Complaint Case no. 862 of 2017, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 6 Cr.M.P. Nos. 1867 of 2019 with 2614 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:38718] 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 22.11.2018 arising out of Complaint Case no. 862 of 2017, are quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 15. In view of the disposal of these criminal miscellaneous petitions, the interim order, if any, passed earlier is vacated. 16. The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 16th December, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 07.01.2026 7 Cr.M.P. Nos. 1867 of 2019 with 2614 of 2019