Arun Kumar Chhabra @ Arun Kr. Chhabra, aged about 65 years, son of Late v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajeev Sengupta, son of Late Mirnal Kanti Sengupta
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:35178 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2017 of 2025 Arun Kumar Chhabra @ Arun Kr. Chhabra, aged about 65 years, son of Late Inder Raj Chhabra, Resident of Flat No. F3/303, 3rd Floor, Avishkar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Road, Surya Bhawan Area, Jamshedpur, P.O. Jamshedpur, District East and P.S.-Sakchi, Town ...... Petitioner Singhbhum. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajeev Sengupta, son of Late Mirnal Kanti Sengupta, Resident of G-204, Mukta Giri, Ashiyana Enclave, Dimna Mango, P.O. and P.S. MGM Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P.No.2 : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Adv. Mr.Rohan Mazumdar, Adv. : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III : Mr. D.K.Karmkar, Adv. 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 528 of BNSS with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 03.04.2024 passed in connection with C/1 Case no. 5039 of 2023 whereby and whereunder, learned JMFC, Jamshedpur was pleased to find prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 420 / 506 of IPC and passed the summoning order. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant took loan from the petitioner and at the time of taking loan, he submitted 4-5 blank cheques. The complainant paid back the loan amount taken 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2017 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:35178 ] from the petitioner to the petitioner except an amount of Rupees 1 to 1.5 lakh and after returning the money the complainant demanded his cheques given by him to the petitioner as security, but the petitioner did not return the same. On 18.07.2023, the petitioner deposited a cheque in the bank, when the complainant after coming to know about the same, approached the petitioner then the petitioner abused and threatened the complainant. It is the further case of the complainant that the petitioner misused the blank cheques given by the complainant by filling-up the amount and date in the same. On the basis of the complaint, the statement
Legal Reasoning
of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the offences punishable under section 420 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with the ingredients of the offence punishable unter section 420 of IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2025) 2 SCC 604 and submits that in the facts of that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India did not find that the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has committed any offence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false and even though the entire allegations made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is made out. It is next 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2017 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:35178 ] submitted that the cheque being a inchoate Document, the petitioner is entitled to fill-up the blank portion and there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since beginning of the transaction between the parties, hence even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety still neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that if the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, then both the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC as well as the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC are made out. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the cheque is an inchoate document. It is needless to mention that inchoate document is a document, that is, incomplete but legally binding once complete and the person who signs a inchoate document, gives the holder an authority to fill up in the missing text such as, the date, amount or payee according to the law and once completed correctly, the document is fully enforceable under the principle underlying in Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case admittedly the complainant handed over cheques to the petitioner keeping a portion of the same blank by putting his signature in the relevant portion of the cheque, so that blank portion of the cheque when filled-up; the same becomes enforceable in law. 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2017 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:35178 ] 10. Under such circumstances, the drawer of the cheque in this case, the complainant was responsible for the risk and peril of use of such cheque by the person to whom he has handed over. Otherwise also, it is a settled principle of law, 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, para 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 has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to deceive has developed later on, such act will not amount to cheating. 11. 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 are considered to be true in their entirety still, the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC is not made out. 12. So far as offence punishable intersection 506 of IPC is concerned, it is a settled to principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph no. 25 of which reads as under :- the principles
Legal Reasoning
25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: ingredients which have to be proved by the 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2017 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:35178 ] “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” (emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, besides the accused threatening some person, it must also be shown that the threat consisted of some injury to the person’s reputation or property and the same was done with intent to cause alarm to a person or to cause that person to do any act, which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means to avoid execution of such threat. 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the threat was with intent to cause alarm to the complainant or to cause the complainant to do any act, which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding execution of such threat. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that mere the bald statement that the petitioner threatened the complainant by itself is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC even though the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety. 15. Under such circumstances and in view the discussions made above, as neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is made out even though the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this court is of the considered view that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2017 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:35178 ] where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 03.04.2024 passed in connection with C/1 Case no. 5039 of 2023 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 03.04.2024 passed in connection with C/1 Case no. 5039 of 2023 is quashed and set aside against the petitioner.
Decision
17. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 13th November, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 02 /12/2025 6 Cr.M.P. No. 2017 of 2025