Jharkhand High Court
Suraj Kumar Mirdha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3198 of 2023
Suraj Kumar Mirdha, aged about 25 years, son of Kanhailal
Mirdha, resident of Panchgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Borio (J), Dist.-
Sahibganj ...... Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Jharkhand
2. Swati Kumari, daughter of Munni Lall Paswan, resident of
Sakrogarh, Puravi Fatak, P.O. & P.S.- Sahibganj (T), Dist.-
Sahibganj ...... Opposite Parties
For the Petitioners :Mr. Vikash Kumar ,Adv.
Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj ,Adv.
For the State :Mr. Shweta Singh , Addl. PP
For the Opp. Party no. 2 : Ms. Saba Ali, Adv.
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 CrPC with a prayer
for quashing the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order
dated 10.06.2022, passed by leaned CJM, Sahibganj in connection
with C/1 Case no. 109 of 2022 involving the offence punishable
under Section 420 of IPC.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and his
sister, namely Rajkumari Devi, cheated the complainant thereby
inducing the complainant and her sister to pay him the money for
arranging an employment for them but ultimately did not arrange
any employment nor repaid the money.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner
has been arrayed in this case only because he is the brother of the
co-accused Rajkumari Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner by
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of A.M.Mohan vs. The State represented by SHO and
Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, para 13 and 20 of
which reads as under :
"13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC,
the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are
made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to
deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable
security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into
valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420
of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any
property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the
inducement."
20. The dishonest inducement is the sine qua non to attract the provisions of
Sections 415 and 420 of IPC. In our considered view, the same is totally
lacking qua the present appellant. In that view of the matter, we find that
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellant
would be nothing else but amount to abuse of process of law resulting in
miscarriage of justice."
Submits that it is a settled principle of law that dishonest,
inducement is a sine qua non to constitute the offence of cheating,
but allegation of such essential facts, is lacking in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain
vs. The State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2022 0
Supreme (SC) 424, para 8 of which reads as under:
"8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the offence alleged against the
appellant-accused-Rekha Jain is for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.
She has been now charged-sheeted for the said offence. However,
considering the allegations in FIR/complaint, it can be seen that the entire
and all the allegations are against the accused Kamalesh Mulchand Jain. In
the complaint/FIR, there are no allegations whatsoever to the effect that the
accused Rekha Jain induced the complainant to part with the gold
jewellery. Therefore, in the absence of any allegation of inducement by the
accused Rekha Jain, she cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section
420 of IPC. There must be a dishonest inducement by the accused."
and submits that even if the allegations made against the
petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the
offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made against
the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal
proceedings as well as the order dated 10.06.2022, in connection
with C/1 Case no. 109 of 2022 be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned Addl.PP and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 on
the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner
and submit that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner
has taken money from the complainant and her sister through
bank transactions and through cash, which allegation has not
been disputed in this petition, and the petitioner has not come up
with any explanation as to under what circumstances, he has not
refunded the money which undisputedly the petitioner has taken
and this conduct of the petitioner only establishes the contention
of the complainant that the money has been taken by the
petitioner by cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing the
complainant and her sister to deliver the money which, there
would not have parted with had they been not cheated, hence, it
is submitted that the material in the record is sufficient to
establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 420
of IPC against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It is lastly
submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit be dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, this court is of
the considered view that there is direct and specific allegation
against the petitioner of cheating and dishonestly inducing the
complainant and her sister after deceiving them to deliver money
and the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has taken
money from the complainant and her sister through bank
transactions and through cash as well, as there is no specific
denial of the same anywhere in this criminal miscellaneous
petition, this Court in view of the materials available in the record,
is of the considered view that the allegation against the petitioner
is sufficient to prima facie constitute the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner hence, this court do not
find any rhyme or reason to accede to the prayer, made in this
criminal miscellaneous petition.
8. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 12th June, 2024
Smita /AFR
