Mrs. Jaya Singh Deo @ Smt. Jaya Singh Judeo, aged about 39 years, wife v. 1. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:33795] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3137 of 2022 ------ Mrs. Jaya Singh Deo @ Smt. Jaya Singh Judeo, aged about 39 years, wife of Vikramaditya Singh Deo, Resident of Aram Niwas Palace, Jaspur Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Jaspur, District- Jashpur, Chhatisgarh Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand … Petitioner 2. Torrent Securities Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Chandra Kant Gopalka, aged about 60 years, R/o 5/2 GEL Church Complex, Main road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazzar, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, 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 the prayer to quash the First Information Report of Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2063 of 2020 and the prayer has also been made to quash the charge sheet submitted in that case as well as the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where 1 Cr. M.P. No.3137 of 2022 [2025:JHHC:33795] under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner availed a loan from the complainant for purchasing a Baleno car but did not pay the loan amount or the installments thereof. The complainant filed a Complaint Case No.4645 of 2018 in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Lower Bazzar P.S. Case No.20 of 2019 has been registered. Police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police finding the allegation against the petitioner to be true, submitted charge sheet and basing upon which, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the said offences as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR; as the FIR has been lodged after a lapse of 13 years of the alleged occurrence. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Akhtar Shakeel vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 217 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 8483 of 2017 and submits that therein in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the FIR has been lodged after nine years, long after the limitation to file a suit for recovery of money dues had long expired. The Hon’ble Supreme Court 2 Cr. M.P. No.3137 of 2022 [2025:JHHC:33795] of India has also observed that the same very legitimately leads to the inference that the institution of the criminal prosecution was basically to overcome the bar of limitation in preferring any money claim for payment due under a contract for supply of goods and went on to set aside the prosecution of the appellant in that case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dayashankar Ojha vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2024:JHHC:11417 and submits that in the fact of that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 and submits that the complaint has been filed without compliance of Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the registration of the F.I.R. is itself bad in law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the case of Dayashankar Ojha vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta & Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home & Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 and submits that merely because in the meanwhile charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken; that will not dilute the illegality in the registration of the F.I.R. as the abuse of process caused by F.I.R stands aggravated if the F.I.R. has taken the form of a charge- sheet after investigation. 3 Cr. M.P. No.3137 of 2022 [2025:JHHC:33795] 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that in the case of Dayashankar Ojha vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 para-18 of which reads as under :- “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) and submits that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner had any dishonest intention since the very beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property against the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that in the case of Dayashankar Ojha vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Others 4 Cr. M.P. No.3137 of 2022 [2025:JHHC:33795] reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770, paragraphs-107 and 109 of which read as under:- legal maxim sublato in consonance with “107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is law, all subsequent and not consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact fundamento cadit situation, the opusmeaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case. 109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra [(2005) 3 SCC 422] this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that it is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that in the case of Dayashankar Ojha vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), this Court also relied upon the judgment of 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) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the 5 Cr. M.P. No.3137 of 2022 [2025:JHHC:33795] offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be shown that the accused had the intention to deceive since the beginning. If the intention to deceive develops later on, the same will not amount to the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that in the absence of any allegation of creation of any false document, the offence of forgery is not made out against the petitioner and in the absence of the 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 petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 11. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the materials available in the record are sufficient to constitute the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra 6 Cr. M.P. No.3137 of 2022 [2025:JHHC:33795] Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph No. 13 of which reads as under:- “13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” taken on their Has held that the mere inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken certain amount of loan for purchase of the Baleno Car, which he has not paid. There is no allegation of any entrustment of property to the petitioner and taking loan by a person, it cannot be said that the loanee is entrusted with the property of the loaner. Hence, the materials available in the record are insufficient to establish that the petitioner had any intention since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 7 Cr. M.P. No.3137 of 2022 [2025:JHHC:33795] 14. 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 none of the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi is made out against the petitioner. Hence, this is a fit case where the First Information Report being Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2063 of 2020, the charge sheet submitted in that case as well as the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 15. Accordingly, the First Information Report being Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2063 of 2020, the charge sheet submitted in that case as well as the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 16.
Decision
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 17. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 11.10.2022 is vacated. 18. The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 19/11/2025 8 Cr. M.P. No.3137 of 2022