Roshan Lal Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 7497 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Roshan Lal Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 December, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                             ( 2025:JHHC:36280 )




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr.M.P. No.398 of 2025
                                     ------

Roshan Lal Gupta, aged about 53 years, son of Sri Jai Narayan Gupta, resident of House No.3442, Vijaya Heritage, 6th/7th Phase, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-Kadma, District-East Singhbhum.

                                                       ...             Petitioner
                                            Versus

            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Amal Kumar Das, son of Late Chutu Das, resident of 39/Manjhi Para, Bara Gamharia, P.O.-Gamharia, P.S.-Adityapur, District- Seraikella Kharsawan.

                                                       ...            Opposite Parties
                                             ------
             For the Petitioner        : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2         : Mr. Amartya Choubey, 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 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the

prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of

Complaint Case No.790 of 2023, including the order dated 10.09.2024

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella whereby and

where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has found

sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed

( 2025:JHHC:36280 )

the offences punishable under sections 406, 418, 420 and 120B of the

Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased

the property from the co-accused Mahmood Alam by a registered sale

deed and got his name mutated; whereas the complainant is claiming that

the property belongs to him.

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

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Others

vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, and submits

that in para-20 & 23, it has been categorically stated that when a sale deed

is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be

possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to alleged that the vendor

has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and

fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration, but a third-

party who is not the purchaser under the deed, is not entitled to make

such complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no

allegation against the petitioner of cheating or dishonestly inducing

anyone to part with any money or property, hence, in the absence of the

same, the offence punishable under Sections 418 & 420 of the Indian Penal

Code is not made out against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the

absence of any allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioner

or dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property against the

( 2025:JHHC:36280 )

petitioner, 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. It is next submitted

that similarly, in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of

any criminal conspiracy, the offence punishable under Section 120B of the

Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is lastly submitted that the

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

7. 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 the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the

materials available in the record is sufficient to constitute each of the

offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Seraikella has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner

for having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 418, 420

and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this

Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after

carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court

finds that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner

has purchased the property from its rightful owner as claimed by the co-

accused Mahmood Alam. There is no allegation of any impersonation

either against the vendor of the petitioner or the petitioner. There is no

allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has cheated or

dishonestly induced to part with any property.

( 2025:JHHC:36280 )

9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding

that even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to

be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 418 &

420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.

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

Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here the essential

ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 are as

follows:-

(i)There must be an entrustment; and

(ii) there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use or use in violation of a legal direction or of legal contract.

as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. C.B.I. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641.

11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no

allegation against the petitioner of being entrusted with any property nor

there is any allegation against the petitioner of committing any dishonest

misappropriation of any entrusted property. In absence of the same, this

Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the allegations against the

petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the

offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Seraikella has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner

for having committed, that is, the offences punishable under sections 406,

418, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, is made out. Therefore, this

Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal

( 2025:JHHC:36280 )

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

and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of

Complaint Case No.790 of 2023 including the order dated 10.09.2024

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, be quashed

and set aside qua the petitioner only.

12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of

Complaint Case No.790 of 2023 including the order dated 10.09.2024

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, is quashed and

set aside qua the petitioner only.

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

14. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted

vide order dated 02.04.2025, is vacated.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 04th of December, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj

Uploaded on 12/12/2025