Jharkhand High Court
About 52 Years, Son Of Late Harbhajan … vs Public on 9 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:14743)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2402 of 2024
------
1. Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukhinder Singh @ Sukhjindar Singh, aged
about 52 years, son of Late Harbhajan Singh, resident of VS Public
School, Sini, Mohitpur, Post Sini, Police Station Seraikella, District
Seraikella Kharsawan
2. Vasudha, aged about 53 years, wife of Sukhjinder Singh @
Sukhinder Singh, resident of VS Public School, Sini, Mohitpur, Post
Sini, Police Station Seraikella, District Seraikella Kharsawan
3. Devendra Kumar, aged about 70 years, son of Ram Lal, resident of
House No. 1047, Kautadih, Post Parsudih, Police Station Parsudih,
Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bimal Kumar Singh, son of Siddh Nath Singh, resident of Quarter
No. MA 36, Adityapur, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur,
District Seraikella Kharsawan … Opposite Parties
——
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : None
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet
no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls.
3. 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 entire criminal proceeding in connection with
1 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:14743)
Adityapur P.S. Case No.247 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.578 of 2023
including the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Incharge at Seraikella whereby and where under the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 120B, 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners entered into an
agreement with the informant and his wife to sell their school established by
them, for Rs.4,00,00,000/-. They received advance amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-
but the agreement could not be performed. There was a subsequent agreement
for refunding the amount taken along with some extra amount or else to give
22% partnership in the school concerned but as the subsequent agreement also
could not be performed by the petitioners, the informant lodged this case but
prior to lodging of this case, the petitioners returned Rs.40,00,000/- out of the
advance amount. The petitioners have refunded the remaining amount of
Rs.60,00,000/- of the advance amount subsequently.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sandeep Bhargava vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another
reported in 2024:JHHC:10399 and submits that therein 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 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)2 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:14743)and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Mariam Fasihuddin & Another vs. State through Adugodi Police Station &
Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 58 paragraph-24 of which reads as
under:-
“24. It is well known that every deceitful act is not unlawful,
just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed
both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall
within the purview of Section 420 IPC. It must also be understood
that a statement of fact is deemed ‘deceitful’ when it is false, and is
knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted
upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss.2 ‘Cheating’
therefore, generally involves a preceding deceitful act that
dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a
valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the
said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement.”
and submits that it is a settled principle of law that every breach of trust
will 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 and if the intention to cheat, has developed later on, the
same will not amount to cheating.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in that case 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 paragraph-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 or3 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:14743)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 the law is also well settled 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, but 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 next relies upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Shaikh Asraf Ali @ Ashraf Ali Seikh @ Asraf Ali Shekh &
Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2023:JHHC:43910
wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 paragraph-13 of which reads as under:-
“13. It is also crucial to note that in the fresh complaint case
instituted by him, Respondent 2 seems to have deliberately
suppressed the material fact that a charge-sheet was already filed in
relation to the same incident, against him and his wife, pursuant to
NCR No. 160 of 2012 (Crime No. 283 of 2017) filed by Appellant
1’s son. No reference to this charge-sheet is found in the private
complaint, or in the statements under Section 200 CrPC filed by
Respondent 2 and his wife. In fact, both the private complaint and
the statement filed on behalf of his wife, merely state that the police
officials have informed them that investigation is ongoing pursuant
to their NCR No. 158 of 2012. The wife’s statement additionally
even states that no action has been taken so far by the police. It is the
litigant’s bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. It
is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that suppression of
material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the
court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand (Ram Dhan v. State of
U.P. [Ram Dhan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 536 : (2012) 3 SCC
(Cri) 237] ; K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12
SCC 481] ). (Emphasis supplied)”
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled
principle of law that it is the litigant’s bounden duty to make a full and true
4 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:14743)
disclosure of facts and it is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that
suppression of material facts before a court amount to abuse of the process of
the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court
towards Annexure-4 page-39 of the brief which is the copy of the account
statement of the petitioner No.2 and submits that the entry dated 14.02.2022
goes to show that the petitioner No.2 has already paid back Rs.40,00,000/- to
the wife of the informant and this material fact has deliberately been
suppressed by the informant. It is next submitted that part repayment of the
advance taken, having already been paid to the informant; so withholding this
information by way of suppression of material facts amounts to abuse of
process of court and on that ground also, the prayer, as prayed for by the
petitioners be allowed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of this
Court in the case in the case of Chandan Kumar Gupta & Another vs. The
State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023:JHHC:21902 wherein this
Court reiterated the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that there is a tendency to use the proceedings before the criminal court, to
settle scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes and submits that this
case is purely a civil dispute of specific performance of contract but still this
criminal case has been instituted.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Neeraj Sahay @ Niraj Sahay vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Another reported in 2024:JHHC:231 wherein in paragraph-17 of
that case; this Court reiterated the settled principle of law, of the following two
5 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:14743)
essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of
the Indian Penal Code:-
1. Entrustment or dominion over the property;
2. Dishonest misappropriation of the said property;
which has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand reported in (2009) 16 SCC 769,
paragraph-6 of which reads as under:-
“6. Section 406 IPC deals with punishment for criminal
breach of trust. In a case under Section 406 the prosecution is
required to prove that the accused was entrusted with property or he
had dominion over the property and that the accused
misappropriated or converted the property to his own use or used or
disposed of the property or wilfully suffered any person to dispose of
the property dishonestly or in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which the entrusted property should be
dealt with or any legal contract express or implied which he had
entered into relating to carrying out of the trust.”
11. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P.,
be allowed.
12. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. but does not
dispute that the petitioners have already paid Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the informant
and his wife which was taken as advance.
13. 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 already indicated above, it is a settled principle of law that to make
out a case of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 of the Indian
Penal Code, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the
accused persons and it must also be shown that the accused persons
dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same
6 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:14743)
and the mere fact that the accused persons did not pay the money to the
informant, does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
14. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that
the petitioners have already refunded the advance amount taken by them to the
informant. It also remains undisputed that even prior to institution of the case,
the petitioner No.2 has paid Rs.40,00,000/- out of the advance amount to the
wife of the informant and this case was instituted suppressing this material
fact.
15. Under such circumstances, in the absence of the essential ingredients of
dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made against the petitioners; even if the entire
allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety.
16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the said offence are as follows:-
(i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading
representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or
omission,
(ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver
any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to
intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived;
and
(iii) Such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to
that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
7 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:14743)
as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8
SCC 751.
17. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that
the entrusted amount has already been refunded by the petitioners to the
informant; part of which i.e., Rs.40,00,000/- was even paid before the
institution of this case. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation
in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are
considered to be true still the ingredients are insufficient to constitute the
fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the informant and his wife by the
petitioners for delivery of any property.
18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. go to show that the dispute between the parties is
purely a civil dispute of Specific Performance of Contract; moreover the F.I.R.
was instituted by suppressing the material fact of part payment of
Rs.40,00,000/- out of the total advanced amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- taken by
the petitioners to the wife of the informant.
19. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the
allegations made in the F.I.R., even if considered to be true in their entirety, still
the same falls short of constituting the offence punishable under Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code or for that matter under Section 406 of the Indian Penal
Code and at best this is a case of breach of contract but without any dishonest
misappropriation.
20. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution
8 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:14743)
must prove the ingredients as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraph-25 of which reads as under:-
25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of
criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona
Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14
SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when
question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are
made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused
the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC,
what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the
prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn.
with regard to proof of offence states the following:
“… The prosecution must prove:
(i) That the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person,
reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or
property of someone in whom he was interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person;
or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally
bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally
entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such
threat.” (emphasis supplied)
A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy
all the ingredients as noticed above.”
21. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation that the
threatening was given with the intention to cause alarm to the complainant or
to cause the complainant to do any act, which he was not legally bound to do,
or omit to do any act, which he was legally entitled to do, as a means of
avoiding the execution of such threat. Moreover, it is not difficult to find out
that the allegation of threatening was made ornamentally to make the offence
serious one without specifically mentioning any date or time of such
threatening or even who out of the three accused persons of the case threatened
the informant.
22. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even
if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in
9 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:14743)
their entirety; still in the absence of the essential ingredients to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence
punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against
the petitioners.
23. In view of the discussions made above as none of the offences in respect
of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate is made out
against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against them are
considered to be true in their entirety; hence, this Court is of the considered
view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection
with Adityapur P.S. Case No.247 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.578 of
2023 including the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Incharge at Seraikella, by which cognizance has been taken by the
learned Magistrate, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
24. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with
Adityapur P.S. Case No.247 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.578 of 2023
including the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Incharge at Seraikella, by which cognizance has been taken by the
learned Magistrate, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
25. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 09th of June, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
10 Cr. M.P. No.2402 of 2024