Madan Kumar Saw, Aged about 44 Years, S/o Late Chohan Saw, Resident of – v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bikram Rana, Aged about – 36 years, Son
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:37354] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4171 of 2022 ------ Madan Kumar Saw, Aged about 44 Years, S/o Late Chohan Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bikram Rana, Aged about – 36 years, Son of – Premchand Rana, Resident of – Masratu, P.O. & P.S. – Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No.3143 of 2022 ------ 1. Indra Saw @ Inder Saw, Aged about 62 Years, S/o Munshi Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 2. Shiv Prasad Saw @ Sheo Prasad Saw, Aged about 61 Years, S/o Jagdish Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 3. Prem Gupta @ Prem Lal Gupta, Aged about 57 Years, S/o Late Jagdish Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S. – Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 4. Munsi Saw, Aged about 55 Years, S/o Late Nageshwar Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 5. Narayan Saw, Aged about 74 Years, S/o Late Nageshwar Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 6. Mohan Saw, Aged about 35 Years, S/o Dubraj Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, 1 Cr. M.P. No.4171 of 2022 other allied case with [2025:JHHC:37354] Jharkhand. 7. Binod Saw, Aged about 63 Years, S/o Late Chatru Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 8. Jaynath Saw, Aged about 37 Years, S/o Late Sohan Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 9. Pramod Saw, Aged about 38 Years, S/o Mohan Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 10. Rajesh Saw, Aged about 38 Years, S/o Mohan Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 11. Anand Saw, Aged about 51 Years, S/o Late Chohan Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 12. Ratan Saw, Aged about 44 Years, S/o Late Chohan Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 13. Dayanand Saw, Aged about 26 Years, S/o Raghu Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 14. Rajeshwar Saw, Aged about 41 Years, S/o Raghu Saw, Resident of – Khud, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bikram Rana, Aged about – 36 years, Son of – Premchand Rana, Resident of – Masratu, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 2 Cr. M.P. No.4171 of 2022 other allied case with [2025:JHHC:37354] … Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate Mr. Purusuttam Anand, Advocate Ms. Shipra Sonam, Advocate Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Advocate Mr. Anshuman, Advocate Ms. Ragini Agha, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. Md. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P. (through VC) For the O.P. No.2. : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2. 3. Since both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed with the same prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 31 of 2020 and the said case is now pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, hence, both Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
Decision
are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the complainant for selling their land at the rate of Rs.3,61,000/- per katha. The petitioners took Rs.4,25,000/- as advance and thereafter, they took further amount of Rs.33,23,000/-. The complainant also constructed a boundary wall 3 Cr. M.P. No.4171 of 2022 other allied case with [2025:JHHC:37354] over the land to be sold but thereafter, the petitioners did not take the remaining amount of money nor did they execute the sale deed and for the purpose of cheating, they entered into an agreement for the sale. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bisheshwar Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023:JHHC:8468 and submits that therein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the co-accused Bisheshwar Saw relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, wherein it was held that a mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code without there being a clear case of entrustment. In the case of Bisheshwar Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124, therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took note of the trend to convert purely civil dispute into criminal case and depricated the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that a civil suit filed by the complainant prior to the institution of this case. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to Annexure-4, kept at page No.53 of the brief, which was filed 4 Cr. M.P. No.4171 of 2022 other allied case with [2025:JHHC:37354] four days prior to the filing of the instant complaint; with the prayer for specific performance of the contract. It is then submitted that the investigation of the case is still going on and the charge sheet has yet to be submitted in this case. It is further submitted that the informant has not paid the entire consideration amount and a sum of Rs.21,82,000/- is still due to be paid since 2017. It is also submitted that there are several purchasers of the adjoining land from the petitioners but no one had any grievance against the petitioners or his co-sharers. It is also submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. and the learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State in respective Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in both Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and submits that if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then, all of the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered, is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, 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 records, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation against the petitioners of creating any false document. Hence, in the absence of creation of any false document, the offence of forgery punishable 5 Cr. M.P. No.4171 of 2022 other allied case with [2025:JHHC:37354] under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and in the absence of the offence of forgery, neither the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, 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:- “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 must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to cheat develops later on, the same will not amount to the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the 6 Cr. M.P. No.4171 of 2022 other allied case with [2025:JHHC:37354] entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to any one and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 12. The undisputed fact remains that the case was filed after institution of Original Suit No.31 of 2020 in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Judge-IV, Hazaribagh for specific performance of the contract. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of the FIR has been registered, is made out against the petitioners and here in basically a cloak of criminal case has been given to a purely civil dispute. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 31 of 2020 be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 31 of 2020 is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 7 Cr. M.P. No.4171 of 2022 other allied case with [2025:JHHC:37354] 14. In the result, both Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th of December, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 15/12/2025 8 Cr. M.P. No.4171 of 2022 other allied case with