Jharkhand High Court
Zahid Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:33172)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3165 of 2022
1. Zahid Ansari, aged about 45 years, son of late Hashim Ansari,
resident of Irba, Karma Toli, P.O.-Irba, P.S.-Ormanjhi, Dist.-Ranchi
2. Mukhtar Ahsan, aged about 72 years, son of late Fakhruddin
Ansari, resident of College Road, Kabir Nagar, P.O.-Kapali, P.S.-
Chandil, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mahjabeen Akhtar, wife of Khurshid Ekram Ansari, resident of
KGN Colony, Near Bawangora, Urdu Middle School, Old Purulia
Road, Jakir Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Azad Nagar, Dist.-East Singhbhum
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Seema Kumari Singh, Advocate .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C1 Case No. 733 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Jamshedpur has passed summoning order against the Cr.M.P. No.3165 of 2022 1 (2025:JHHC:33172) petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Puran Chandra Poddar vs. The State of Jharkhand dated 30.10.2023 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360, paragraph no. 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) and submits that therein the Hon'ble 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 Cr.M.P. No.3165 of 2022 2 (2025:JHHC:33172) fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties and further it was observed in that case that the criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurize parties to settle civil disputes.
4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case 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 & Ors. 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)"
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that 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.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Cr.M.P. No.3165 of 2022 3 (2025:JHHC:33172) Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph No.11 of which reads as under:-
"11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. 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 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment.
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that 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 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment.
6. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of having committed dishonest misappropriation of any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Cr.M.P. No.3165 of 2022 4 (2025:JHHC:33172) Penal Code is not made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
7. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the materials available in the record is sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is 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 the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur and Others v. Jagnar Singh and Another, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, paragraph no.10 of which reads as under:-
10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating.
Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] ) (emphasis supplied) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not Cr.M.P. No.3165 of 2022 5 (2025:JHHC:33172) constitute the offence of cheating and similar is the legal position in respect of the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, the definition of which is contained in Section 405 of Indian Penal Code.
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners gave cheques towards refund of the advance amount which was dishonoured but there is no rhyme or reason as to why the cheque amount was not demanded by the complainant from the petitioners within the time stipulated under Section 138 of N.I. Act nor is it the case of the complainant that the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is made out in this case.
10. Under such circumstances, at best it is a case where the petitioners have not refunded the advance amount but as already indicated above, in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment, the same is not sufficient to constitute either the offence punishable under Section 420 or the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code; as there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties nor there is any allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property.
11. In view of the discussants made above, 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 neither the offence punishable under Section 420 nor the offence Cr.M.P. No.3165 of 2022 6 (2025:JHHC:33172) punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners.
12. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the law and this is a fit case where the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C1 Case No. 733 of 2019 be quashed and set aside.
13. Accordingly, the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C1 Case No. 733 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.
14. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 6th November, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 07/11/2025 Cr.M.P. No.3165 of 2022 7