Jharkhand High Court
Govind Chandra Patri @ Govind Chand ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:13425]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2506 of 2024
------
Govind Chandra Patri @ Govind Chand Patri, S/o- Late Raghuram
Patri aged about 55 years, R/o. Plot No. 1154, Gayatri Vihar,
P.O.+P.S. Jaipur Road Umpada, Jajpur Road, Byasanagar, Odisha,
Pin Code: 755 019.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bijay Ganjhu, Aged about N/A., S/o. Fouzidari Ganjhu R/o.
Bansham, P.S. & P.O. Kunda, District Chatra, Jharkhand, PIN:
825405 ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate (through V.C.)
Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate
Mr. K. Hari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- I.A. No.4589 of 2025
Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition.
3. Since hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today,
hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Heard the parties.
[2025:JHHC:13425]
2. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 even though the
notice has validly been served upon opposite party No.2.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash all the criminal proceedings and
prosecution arising out Kunda P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.300 of 2024, in which after submission of charge-sheet, the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioner and prayer has also been made in this criminal
miscellaneous petition, to quash the cognizance order dated 22.06.2024; the date
of which has erroneously been mentioned as 22.07.2024 in the prayer portion of
the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant came across a person
who was working between the petitioner and Reliance Jio Company. The
complainant along with ten others worked as labourers under the petitioner at
the rate of Rs.300 per day per person. The complainant and the other labourers
were marking their attendance over which the employees of the petitioner used
to pay the expenses for ration and were putting their signature on the
attendance Register. On the basis of the attendance register, the payment used
to be made to the petitioner and the other labourers. The petitioner paid up to
July, 2016 and in the month of October, 2016, there was due in payable a sum of
Rs.7,000/- and in the month of September, 2016, there was a due in payable a
sum of Rs.35,000/- and apart from that for the month of October, November
and till 15th December, 2016, a total wages of Rs.1,54,965/- was not paid. In
February, 2017, the accused persons over mobile phone refused to pay the dues
[2025:JHHC:13425]
of the complainant and abused her by taking name of the caste of the
complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The complainant issued a
legal notice through his Advocate which was returned unserved with the
endorsement that no such addressee is available. The accused-person is not
receiving calls made by the complainant over mobile phone. The complainant
filed Complaint Case No.442 of 2017 and upon the same being referred to
police, Kunda P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 has been registered. Police took up
investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police found
that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Section 406,
420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted charge-sheet against the
petitioner for having committed the said offences. Consequent upon the same,
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra has taken cognizance
of the offences as already indicated above vide order dated 22.06.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the
parties is essentially a dispute of civil nature. It is next submitted that all the
causes of action have taken place in the State of Orissa and no cause of action
has taken place in the District of Chatra, Jharkhand; where the case has been
instituted. It is next submitted that there is absolutely no allegation made
against the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable under Section 504,
506 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs.
NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and submits that in the case of
Lalit Chaturvedi & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in SLP (Cr.)
No.13485 of 2023 vide order dated 06.02.2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India observed that the repeated judgments of the Supreme Court of India are
[2025:JHHC:13425]
overlooked and not being applied and enforced where the distinction between
a civil wrong in the form of 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 Indian Penal Code has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma
& Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 and
submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle
of law that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the
beginning of the transaction, that is at the time when the offence is said to have
been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To
hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent
or dishonest intention at the time of making promise.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies 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 and submits that 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 as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in that case.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies 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 and submits that the
[2025:JHHC:13425]
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated in that case that 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.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahmood Ali & Others vs.
State of U.P. & Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 and submits that
in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the principle of law
that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances; emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try
to read in between the lines. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
11. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the allegations made
against the petitioner is sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of
which cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate consequent upon submission of charge-sheet. Hence, it is submitted
that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be
dismissed.
12. 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 there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of either
intentionally insulting and thereby giving provocation to the complainant or
anyone else intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will
[2025:JHHC:13425]
cause such person to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Hence,
this Court has no hesitation in holding that even after the entire allegations
made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the
offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out
against the petitioner.
13. Similarly, there is allegation against the petitioner of criminally
intimidating the complainant or anyone else. Under such circumstances, this
court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 506 is
also not made out against the petitioner.
14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law; as has already been
mentioned above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, that in order to
constitute the offence of cheating, it is necessary to show that the accused had
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise and if the
intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, the complainant and others were
paid their wages for a considerable period of time. For some period, they were
paid part of the wages and for some period, they were not paid substantial
amount of their wages but there is an admission that they were paid the money
for the ration by the employees of the petitioner. There is no document to show
that the complainant was ever employed by the petitioner. It is not forthcoming
as to who was the employee of the petitioner- who was supervising and taking
attendance of the petitioner and the alleged occurrence of cheating took place
in the State of Orissa but no part of the alleged cheating has taken place
anywhere in the district of Chatra, Jharkhand.
[2025:JHHC:13425]
16. 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 420 is not made out
against the petitioner and this case has been instituted for wrecking vengeance
and to arm twist the petitioner to pay some money to the complainant; which is
claimed to be arrear wages; which essentially even if considered to be true, will
amount to a breach of contract.
17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that as already indicated
above, in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code is that it must be shown that the accused person disposed of
the property retained by him dishonestly or fraudulently.
18. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation
made against the petitioner of entrustment of any money nor there is any
allegation to show entrustment of any money by the complainant or anyone
else for that matter nor is there any allegation of any dishonest
misappropriation of money by the petitioner. 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 is not made out against the petitioner.
19. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered
view that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner; where
none of the alleged occurrences has taken place in the district of Chatra in the
State of Jharkhand and as none of the offences alleged is made out, hence,
continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to
abuse of process of law as basically the same has been instituted for the
[2025:JHHC:13425]
purpose of wrecking vengeance. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire
criminal proceedings and prosecution as well as the cognizance order dated
22.06.2024 arising out Kunda P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.300 of 2024, be quashed and set aside.
20. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings and prosecution as well as
the cognizance order dated 22.06.2024 arising out Kunda P.S. Case No.39 of
2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.300 of 2024, is quashed and set aside.
21. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
22. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.8440
of 2024 is disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 28th of April, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
