Jharkhand High Court
Mode Reails Sale And Marketing Private ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 December, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:37297 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2094 of 2025
------
1. Mode Reails Sale and Marketing Private Limited @ Mode Retails Sale and Marketing Private Limited being represented through its Directors namely, 1. Giriwala Kumari, 2. Prashant Kumar and 3. Shashank Shekhar aged about 48 years, son of Rajendra Prasad, R/o B-16, Flat No.803, Supertech Eco Village 2 Greater Noida, P.O. and P.S.-Gautam Buddha Nagar, District-Noida (Uttar Pradesh).
2. Shashank Shekhar aged about 48 years, son of Rajendra Prasad, R/o B-16, Flat No.803, Supertech Eco Village 2 Greater Noida, P.O. and P.S.-Gautam Buddha Nagar, District-Noida (Uttar Pradesh).
3. Giriwala Kumari, aged about 46 years, W/o Prashant Kumar,
4. Prashant Kumar aged about 52 years, son of Rajendar Prasad. Both R/o House No.121 Sector 71, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, P.O. and P.S.-Gautam Buddha Nagar, District-Noida, (Uttar Pradesh).
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajiv Kumar Sharma son of Vishnu Sharma R/o Flat No.201 A, Shree Shyam Enclave, Karam Chowk, Vidya Nagar, P.O.-G.P.O. and P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
I.A. No.16503 of 2025
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory 1 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:37297 ) application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of the instant Cr.M.P. Since, the hearing of instant Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Cr.M.P. No.2094 of 2025
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-III, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.10505 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-III, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant was appointed as CNF Agent of the petitioner no.1 Company and paid security deposit of Rs.15 lakhs. As part of the agreement, the complainant also arranged a godown on the assurance that, they will be paid Rs.45,000/- per month, Rs.2,000/- towards electricity bill, Rs.500/- towards internet expenses and Rs.20,000/- payment to be made to the accountant and assured to be paid commission. It is further alleged by the complainant that though the petitioners paid the due amount payable to the complainant till November 2021, but in December 2021, the petitioners adopted dilly- 2 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:37297 ) dallying tactics in respect of payment of the said agreed money and reduced the godown rent from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.15,000/- unilaterally without consulting the complainant. On 21.02.2022, the complaint resigned from the CNF Agent of the petitioner no.1-Company and demanded back his security money of Rs.15 lakhs, but the same was not paid to the complainant and when the complainant sent legal notice, the same was replied by the petitioners denying the claim of the complainant on some misleading pleas.
4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complaint and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-III, Ranchi has found prima facie case as already indicated above and passed the summoning order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kaldip Singh @ Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldip Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2024: JHHC: 25219 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sachin Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82, paragraph-17 of which reads as under:-
17. In the case of Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 10 SCC 663], a coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with a criminal complaint arising out of retention of bill amount in course of commercial transaction. The Court found essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust or dishonest intention of inducement, which formed the foundation of the complaint were missing. The High Court's judgment rejecting the plea for quashing the criminal proceeding was set aside by this Court.
The reasoning for quashing the criminal proceeding would be 3 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:37297 ) revealed from paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Report, which reads:--
"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.
19. Even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the face value are true, in our view, the basic essential ingredients of dishonest misappropriation and cheating are missing. Criminal proceedings are not a shortcut for other remedies. Since no case of criminal breach of trust or dishonest intention of inducement is made out and the essential ingredients of Sections 405/420 IPC are missing, the prosecution of the appellants under Sections 406/120-B IPC, is liable to be quashed."
and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 and submits that therein it has been reiterated 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 person. It must also be shown that the accused person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same.
4 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:37297 )
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits 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 & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-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 it was 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, if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 626 and submits that in para-26 therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating, it must be there from the very beginning or inception.
5 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:37297 )
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 512, paragraph- 15 of which reads as under:-
"15. During the last couple of months, a number of judgments/orders have been pronounced by this Court, especially in cases arising from the State of Uttar Pradesh, deprecating the stance of the police as well as the courts in failing to distinguish between a civil wrong in the form of a breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, the ingredients of which are quite different and requires mens rea at the time when the contract is entered into itself to not abide by the terms thereof. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; a criminal offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of which are quite different and requires mens rea at the time when the contract is entered into itself to not abide by the terms thereof, is not made out.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is then submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal case has been given to the civil dispute to harass the petitioners. It is next submitted that the agreement between the parties contains a valid and subsisting arbitration clause under clause 6(e) of the Agreement.
6 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:37297 )
10. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offence in respect of which the prima facie case was found out by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-III, Ranchi is made out, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
11. 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 as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Supra) that non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of which are quite different and requires mens rea at the time when the contract is entered into itself to not abide by the terms thereof, is not made out.
12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property and in the absence of the same even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as already indicated above, it is a settled 7 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:37297 ) principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, it is essential that deception must have been played by the accused person of the case since the beginning of the transaction between the parties.
14. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that for a considerable period, the complainant acted as CNF Agent of the Petitioner no.1-Company and they used to pay the required amount, so this Court has no hesitation in holding that this is not a case where the petitioners played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Therefore, 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.
15. In view of the discussions made above since neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-III, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.10505 of 2022, be quashed and set aside.
16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-III, 8 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:37297 ) Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.10505 of 2022, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.
17. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of December, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 17/12/2025 9 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2025