The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3533 of 2019 Md. Firoz Ansari, aged about 38 years, son of Gulam Rasul Ansari, resident of Qtr. No. 2074, Street-4, Sector –IV/A, P.O. & P.S.- Sector –IV, Dist.- Bokaro Versus ...... Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Alok Kumar Jain, son of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain, resident of Plot No. 177, Co- operative colony, P.O., P.S.- B.S. City, Dist.- Bokaro ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Adv. Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl. PP For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Adv. : P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:-
Facts
Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 13.03.2018 (Annexure 2) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case no. 1066 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 420 of IPC inter alia against the petitioner; which is now pending in the court of learned ACJM, Bokaro. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner along with the co- accused Mrs. Snehlata Devi, cheated the complainant by claiming that Snehlata Devi is the rightful owner of the land and the land is not involved in any litigation, and thereby induced the complainant to pay Rs. 13,01,000/-, out of Rs. 31,01,000/- for land and Rs. 3,00,000/- for the stamp paper and entered into an 1 Cr.M.P. No. 3533 of 2019 agreement with the complainant but later on the complainant came to know that the accused Snehlata Devi is not the owner of the land. In fact, the land in question is a Manjhi land and the land is not a transferable land and thus, the petitioners have cheated the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint case no. 1066 of 2017 and learned Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and the ordered for issuance of summon inter alia to the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
“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)” has 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. 5. It is next submitted that in this case also, there is no allegation of deception played at the very inception but the allegation is that of merely a breach of contract. It is next submitted that Mrs. Snehlata Devi is the rightful owner of the land and the land has been mutated in the name of Snehlata Devi after she purchased the same from Indu Shankar Prasad, hence, the allegation against the 2 Cr.M.P. No. 3533 of 2019 petition is false. It is therefore submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that it is not a case of mere breach of contract rather it is a case, where in a planned manner with the intention to deceive the complainant since the beginning, the petitioner and the co- accused committed the offence of cheating, knowing pretty well that they are posing and deceiving the complainant by making her believe that Mrs. Snehlata Devi is the rightful owner of the land involved in this suit and by such deception, induced the complainant to pay Rs. 13,01,000/- and which they are not returning without any plausible reason and hence, this is a case of out and out cheating as from the fraudulent and dishonest intention of the petitioner and the co-accused persons, it is crystal clear since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that a mere breach of promise, agreement or contract does not ipso facto constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. 8. Coming to the facts of the case, here it is a case that the petitioner along with the co-accused person, since the beginning had the intention to deceive the complainant and with that fraudulent and dishonest intention in their mind, knowing pretty well that Mrs. Snehlata Devi is not the owner of the land in question having a clear title, has misrepresented and deceived the complainant to part with Rs. 13,01,000/- and she would not have made the complainant to part with the money, had she not deceived the complainant by making her believe that Mrs. Snehlata Devi is the rightful owner of the land, having clear title over the same. 3 Cr.M.P. No. 3533 of 2019 9. Thus in the considered opinion of the court, if the entire allegation made in the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses are treated to be true in their entirety, they are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 10. So far as the contention of the petitioner that Snehlata Devi was the rightful owner of the land and the land has been mutated in her name is concerned, the same is a defence which can be verified in a full dress trial and at this stage, in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC, certainly, this court cannot conduct a mini trial for the purpose of ascertaining the veracity of the defence of the petitioner, as has been by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the para 7 of which reads as under :- “ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (Emphasis supplied) 11. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr. )and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 25th July, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 4 Cr.M.P. No. 3533 of 2019
Arguments
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of this court dated 30.10.2023 passed in Cr. MP no. 332 of 2022 in the case of Puran Chandra Poddar vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr. 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 No.6 of which reads as under :-