Jharkhand High Court
Bimlendra Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:25967]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.175 of 2019
------
1. Bimlendra Kumar Choudhary, S/o- Late Atul Chandra Mahto, aged about 55 years, R/o Gangpur P.O. Poddardih, P.S. Nirsa, District- Dhanbad;
2. Swapan Bhandari, aged about 45 years, S/o Kanhai Bhandari, R/o Madanpur, P.O. Madanpur, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad;
3. Pradeep Mahato @ Chhotan, aged about 22 years, S/o Late Gorachandra Mahto, R/o Dangapara, P.O. Bisanpur, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad;
4. Arbind Mahato, aged about 35 years, S/o Tupal Mahato, R/o Dangapara, P.O. Bisanpur, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Amit Mahto, S/o Haradhan Mahto, aged about 24 years, R/o Ranchi Colony, Quarter no. Mg 27/b P.O. Maithan, P.S. Chirkunda, District- Dhanbad.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Ashna Khanam, Advocate
Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
------
PRESENT
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 a prayer to quash the FIR along with the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2019 passed 1 Cr. M.P. No.175 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:25967] by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No.219 of 2018 in which after investigation of the case, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 120B, 147, 323, 506, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has also taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant-informant filed Complaint Case No.2811 of 2018 which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Chirkunda P.S. Case No.219 of 2018 was registered. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners paid advance to purchase the land of the father of the complainant and cheated them by obtaining their signature and thumb impression by way of deceit. After completion of the investigation, police found the sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners and submitted charge-sheet and basing upon which, the order taking cognizance has been passed as already indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Satyabhama Dubey @ Satyabhama Devi & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2024 Supreme (Jhk) 171 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur Vs. Jagnar Singh reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, para-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 2 Cr. M.P. No.175 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:25967] essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by nonrefunding 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) and submits that therein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that If the dispute between the parties is 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 the offence of cheating.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in the case of Satyabhama Dubey @ Satyabhama Devi & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (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 & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, the relevant portion of 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) and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held 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.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the case of Satyabhama Dubey @ Satyabhama Devi & Others vs. The State of 3 Cr. M.P. No.175 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:25967] Jharkhand & Others (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 therein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused persons. It must also be shown that the accused persons dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Angad Kumar Pandey vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2023 Supreme (Jhk) 1096 and submits that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Another reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373, para-8 of which reads as under: -
4 Cr. M.P. No.175 of 2019
[2025:JHHC:25967]
"8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus:
"405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits 'criminal breach of trust'." Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made." (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that where the dispute between the parties is essential a civil dispute, non-payment or under-payment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel of the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that there is a direct allegation against the petitioners of committing the offence in respect of which the charge-sheet has been submitted against them and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has also found prima facie case against them. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 5 Cr. M.P. No.175 of 2019
[2025:JHHC:25967]
9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that unless there is a deception played by the accused person, since the beginning of the transactions between the parties, the offence of cheating will not be made out.
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of having played any deception since the beginning of the transactions between the parties, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the 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.
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of the property by the petitioners and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
12. The rest of the offences are ornamental allegations made to make the case a serious one but there is no specific allegation in respect of the same and the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute and the signature and the thumb impression of the complainant and his father on the relevant documents is not under dispute and the documents are registered documents; which were registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar.
13. Under such circumstances, 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 because in view of the discussions made above, none of the offences for which charge-sheet has been submitted and 6 Cr. M.P. No.175 of 2019 [2025:JHHC:25967] the cognizance has been taken, is made out against the petitioners. Hence, this is a fit case where the FIR along with the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No.219 of 2018 be quashed and set aside.
14. Accordingly, the FIR along with the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No.219 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.
15. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
16. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.6292 of 2022 is disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 26th of August, 2025 AFR/ Saroj 7 Cr. M.P. No.175 of 2019