Jharkhand High Court
Navin Jaiswal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:16881 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3009 of 2019
------
Navin Jaiswal, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad
Jaiswal, resident of Church Road, P.S.-Daily Market, Ranchi, P.O.-
Lalpur, P.S.-Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Pawan Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Late Ramu Ram
Verma, resident of HB Road, P.O.-Lalpur, P.S.-Lower Bazar, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate
: Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kaustav Roy, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order taking cognizance
dated 30.11.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.3096 of 2017 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi including the entire criminal proceeding
in connection with the said case registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
( 2025:JHHC:16881 )
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner entered into an
agreement according to which the petitioner being an owner of a girl's
hostel permitted the complainant and his partner Devendra Yadav to run
the said hostel. It is the case of the petitioner that the complainant gave two
cheques of one lakh each to the petitioner as security; but the petitioner
encashed the said cheques. It is the further case of the complainant that after
entering into the said agreement, there was dispute between the
complainant and Devendra Yadav. Devendra Yadav paid Rs.1,11,400/- by
way of cheque towards the profit of the business to the Complainant but the
same was dishonored.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheshyam & Ors.
vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.3020 of 2024
dated 22.07.2024 that in para-11 of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has referred the ingredients which must exist to constitute the offences
punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
11. For an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC,
the following ingredients must exist:
i. The accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with
dominion over property;
ii. The accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to
their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of
that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and
iii. Such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should
be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in
which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract
which the person has made, touching the discharge of such
trust.
submits that at best the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute
and a cloak of criminal case is being given to a purely civil dispute between
( 2025:JHHC:16881 )
the parties, hence, it is submitted 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 of the Indian Penal Code is not made
out.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand
Kumar Mohatta and Anr. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of
Home and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1395 of 2018 dated
15.11.2018 and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
held that if the person to whom the security amount, which was paid, along
with agreement, as a deposit can be said to have dishonestly
misappropriated an entrustment of property, which has dishonestly been
converted to the own use of the accused person or disposed of the same in
violation of any direction of law or contract.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Rafique and Others vs. The State
of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2024:JHHC:3151 wherein this Court
has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported
in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph no. 11 of which reads as under :-
"11. Having observed the background principles applicable
herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the
appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we
observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the
parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant
and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further, it is
an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount,
( 2025:JHHC:16881 )
Respondent 2, had instituted a summary civil suit which is still
pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between
simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or
property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not,
ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust
contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of
entrustment.(Emphasis supplied)
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled
principle of law that a mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does
not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained
in Section 405 IPC, without there being a clear case of entrustment for which
the provision of punishment has been enshrined under Section 406 of Indian
Penal Code, hence, 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 the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 submits that the complainant admits that he has paid
Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner but the same was paid as security to him. It is
fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that
though the security deposit was made in terms of the deed of lease, the copy
of which has been kept at Annexure-4, Page-28-33 of the brief, but there is
no covenant between the parties to get back the security deposit, but still
since the opposite party no.2/complainant has issued a demand notice, the
petitioner ought to have paid the same and having not paid the same, the
offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out,
( 2025:JHHC:16881 )
hence, 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, it is pertinent
to mention here that admittedly, the money of Rs.2 Lakhs was paid by the
complainant to the petitioner as security deposit. Admittedly, there is no
clause in the deed of lease entered into by the petitioner and inter alia that
the complainant can get back the security deposit.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
considering the entire allegations made against the petitioner to be true in
their entirety, there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner
dishonestly misappropriated any entrusted property and in the absence of
the same in the considered opinion of this Court, the offence punishable
under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered
view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner
will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order
taking cognizance dated 30.11.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.3096 of
2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi including the entire
criminal proceeding in connection with the said case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioner, be quashed and set aside.
11. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 30.11.2017 passed in
Complaint Case No.3096 of 2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
( 2025:JHHC:16881 )
Ranchi including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said
case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioner, is quashed and set aside.
12. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
13. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted
vide order dated 09.01.2020, stands vacated.
14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd of June, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
