Dija Pada Roy vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3928 Jhar

                                                     1                  Cr.M.P. No. 2098 of 2015


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No. 2098 of 2015
            1.   Dija Pada Roy
            2.   Ramesh Roy
            3.   Uttam Roy @ Uttam Kumar Roy                   ... Petitioners
                                       -Versus-
            1.   The State of Jharkhand
            2.   Vikash Kumar Mandal                           ... Opposite Parties
                                             -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Petitioners      : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate
            For the State            : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P.
            For O.P. No.2            : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
                                             -----

03/12.10.2023     Heard Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Achinto Sen,

learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal

proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.05.2015 arising

out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.670 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.3011 of

2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,

Dhanbad.

3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that an agreement was

executed between the petitioner no.1 and informant on 09.02.2010 for sale

of land. It was further alleged that on 09.02.2010, petitioner no.1 received

a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the informant and it was agreed that he will

register the said land within five months. It was also alleged that petitioner

no.1 always denied to register the same. It was further alleged that

petitioner no.1 and his both sons, petitioner nos.2 and 3, abused the

informant and took a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the pocket of the informant.

4. Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

an agreement for sale of land was executed on 02.09.2010 between

petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2. He submits that the allegations are

there that sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was not returned to opposite party no.2. He

also submits that in view of the order passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Dhanbad in A.B.P. No.206 of 2015, the said amount has already

been returned to opposite party no.2. He submits that the case is not made

out against the petitioners under Section 419/420/504/506/379 of the

Indian Penal Code. He submits that maliciously the case has been filed

against the petitioners.

5. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the

case has been rightly filed and the learned Court has taken cognizance and

at this stage, this Court may not interfere.

6. Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State submits that it appears

from Annexure-2 that that the amount has been deposited and direction is

there to hand it over to opposite party no.2.

7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, it appears that the dispute is with regard to non-execution of the

agreement entered between the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2.

The agreement was executed on 09.02.2010, whereas, the present FIR has

been lodged on 29.06.2014, which clearly suggests that it was an

afterthought. Even the money suit limitation is there only for three years. It

appears that for recovery of the amount, the present FIR has been lodged.

However, it appears from Annexure-2, which is an order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad which speaks that sum of Rs.2,50,000/-

has already been received by opposite party no.2.

8. 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. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar

and another, reported in [(2005) 10 SCC 336].

9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal

proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.05.2015 arising

out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.670 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.3011 of

2014, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,

Dhanbad are quashed.

10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

11. Pending I.A, if any, is disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/