Maya Rani Aged About 55 Years W/O Late … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 July, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Maya Rani Aged About 55 Years W/O Late … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 July, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                         (2025:JHHC:19884)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No.3996 of 2023
                                          ------

Maya Rani aged about 55 years W/O Late Vijay Kumar R/O Village
Charadih, P.O.- Karma, P.S.- Koderma, District Koderma
… Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Manoj Kumar S/O Ramlakhan Yadav, R/O Village Charadih,
P.O.- Karma, P.S.- Koderma, District Koderma
… Opposite Parties

——

             For the Petitioner        : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
             For the State             : Ms. Lily Sahay, Addl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2         : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Advocate
                                         Mr. Anshuman Kumar, 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,

1973 with a prayer to set aside the entire criminal proceedings as well as the

order taking cognizance dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.1188 of 2022.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant entered into an

agreement with the petitioner for sell of a land for Rs.14,00,000/-. The

complainant paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- but the petitioner got his land

sold to someone else and did not return the money.

1 Cr. M.P. No.3996 of 2023

(2025:JHHC:19884)

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs.

State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, and submits 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 the criminal breach of trust

contained in Section 405 of Indian Penal Code, without there being a clear case

of entrustment and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India has reiterated the caution to be taken against the tendency of

criminalizing civil disputes. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner

further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC

303.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire

allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their

entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 or 420 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that

the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the

opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the

petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. and submit that this is a clear case of cheating.

Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

7. 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam &

2 Cr. M.P. No.3996 of 2023
(2025:JHHC:19884)

Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC

2311, para-12 of which reads as under:-

“12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any
property by respondent no. 2 – complainant. The only delivery made
was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between the
parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to
have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2.
Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register
the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance
payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of
misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of
trust cannot be said to be made out.” (Emphasis supplied)

has categorically held that the amount paid towards consideration

cannot be said to have been entrusted with the accused persons and in that case

it was also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a mere breach

of contract does not constitute the offence of cheating or breach of trust.

8. It is also a settled a principle of law that unless the accused person plays

deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, the

offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code will

not be made out, as has been held by 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:-

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)

3 Cr. M.P. No.3996 of 2023
(2025:JHHC:19884)

9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the

petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between

the parties, hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire

allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their

entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code

is not made out against the petitioner.

10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal

Code is concerned, as already indicated above, there is no allegation of any

entrustment of money to the petitioner nor is there any allegation of dishonest

misappropriation of the entrusted property. Under such circumstances, this

Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against

the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence

punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against

the petitioner.

11. In view of the discussions made above as neither the offence punishable

under Section 406 nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations

made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence,

this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of this criminal

proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and

this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order

taking cognizance dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.1188 of 2022, as

prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

4 Cr. M.P. No.3996 of 2023

(2025:JHHC:19884)

12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order taking

cognizance dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.1188 of 2022, as prayed for by

the petitioner, is quashed and set aside.

13. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 21st of July, 2025
AFR/ Animesh

5 Cr. M.P. No.3996 of 2023