Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:1986)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1940 of 2023
Sunil Kumar Sharma, aged about 27 years, son of Bablu Lal Sharma,
resident of Nanwada Gadrwada, P.O. 7 P.S.-Dausa, Dist.-Dausa,
(Rajasthan), PIN-303325
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor of Sri Balajee Traders, son of late
Ram Awtar Agarwal, aged about 47 years, resident of D-Costa
Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East
Singhbhum, (Jharkhand), PIN-831006
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate : Mr. Raj, 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 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1666 of 2021 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of 1 Cr.M.P. No.1940 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:1986) the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant placed an order for supply of face mask worth Rs.11,02,500/- but the petitioner supplied the same showing value of the product to be Rs. 81,000/- only that too not in the name of the complainant.
On being approached by the complainant, the petitioner intimated the complainant that even though the goods are not in the name of the complainant but the same was dispatched to the complainant and the transporter also intimated the complainant that the same article is to be handed over to the complainant but the complainant did not receive the same and lodged a written report with the Jusalai police station basing upon which Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 91 of 2020 was registered and police after completion of the investigation submitted final report upon finding that the allegations against the petitioner to be not true and recommended initiation of the proceeding against the complainant for having committed the offence punishable under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The informant thereafter filed Complaint-cum-Protest Case No. 1666 of 2021 and basing upon the complaint-cum-protest petition, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the offence 2 Cr.M.P. No.1940 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:1986) punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and passed a summoning order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, relied upon its own judgment in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 869, and wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India disapproved the practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies; by observing that money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution, where the dispute is essentially civil in nature and submits that in this case also as the dispute is essentially a civil dispute hence, filing of the criminal case is an abuse of process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajan Choudhary vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. and allied cases reported in 2025:JHHC:23712 and submits that this Court in that case 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 3 Cr.M.P. No.1940 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:1986) 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 every breach of contract does not give rise to the 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 and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramdhan Mahto & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2025:JHHC:30990 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 and Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. 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] )"
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if the dispute between the parties was 4 Cr.M.P. No.1940 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:1986) essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused persons by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2023:JHHC:11106 and submits that in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajib Ranjan & Ors. vs. R. Vijaykumar reported in 2014 4 JLJR (SC) 562 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of the case, where an attempt was made by the complainant to covert a case of civil nature into criminal prosecution; justified the order of the High Court by which the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false which has even been found by the police after investigation of the case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a reputed businessman and even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
9. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and 5 Cr.M.P. No.1940 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:1986) submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of cheating, as the petitioner deceived the complainant to part with huge amount of money in the garb of supplying face mask which he did not supply hence, the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
10. 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 as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused must have played deception since the inception of the transaction between the parties.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant gave certain money and the petitioner supplied certain goods albeit not in the name of the complainant but admittedly, the transporter was ready to hand over the articles supplied by the petitioner to the complainant but the complainant did not receive the same.
12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of having played deception since the very inception and in the absence of this essential ingredient to constitute the offence 6 Cr.M.P. No.1940 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:1986) punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1666 of 2021 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1666 of 2021 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
14. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 27th January, 2026 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 28/01/2026 7 Cr.M.P. No.1940 of 2023