Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Sharda @ Sanjay Kumar Sarda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:13959]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2355 of 2024
------
Sanjay Kumar Sharda @ Sanjay Kumar Sarda, aged about 53 years,
son of Late Kameshwar Prasad Sharda, resident of House No.402 E,
Hariom Tower, P.O. GPO P.S. Lalpur, Circular Road, Lalpur,
District- Ranchi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Khurshid Alam, son of Late Gul Azam Ansari, resident- Village-
Nagri, P.O- Bukru, P.S- Kanke, Distt- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Akhilesh Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Ram Manohar Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to set aside the entire criminal proceedings initiated
against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.3747 of 2024
including the order dated 18.05.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-
XXIII, Ranchi has found sufficient material to proceed with the case inter alia
against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the father of the complainant
purchased a property from Padmavati Devi which was subsequently sold by
[2025:JHHC:13959]
the son of Padmavati Devi namely Rajeshwer Nath Alok in favour of Sanjay
Kumar Sharda @ Sanjay Kumar Sarda. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class- XXIII, Ranchi on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant
on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses have found
sufficient material in the record to proceed with the case against the petitioner;
as already indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court
in the case of Biras Muni Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another
reported in Cr.M.P. No.790 of 2023 dated 19.11.2024 and submits that in that
case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar &
Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, para-19 of which reads as under:-
"19. To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not
only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused
should have dishonestly induced the person deceived
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable
security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security)."
in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with the
ingredients of Section 420 and submits that there is absolutely no allegation
against the petitioner of making the complainant deliver any property to the
petitioner.
5. It is then submitted that at best, on the basis of the allegations, the
petitioner might have claimed that he has been cheated as the vendor has taken
money from him without having title of the ownership of the property but by
no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner has cheated the
complainant. Hence, it is submitted that even after the entire allegations made
against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still no offence
[2025:JHHC:13959]
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioner even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, more so
because the vendor of the petitioner claims that he is bonafide owner of the
property sold by him to the petitioner and at best a civil dispute can be made
out, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is for the purpose of wrecking
vengeance by giving a cloak of criminal offence to a purely civil dispute. Hence,
it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
6. 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 and submits that as the property of the complainant has been
delivered by the co-accused to the petitioner, hence, the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.
Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without
any merit, be dismissed.
7. 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 as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of this
judgment; one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is:-
"There has to be delivery of any property to any person cheated."
Now in this case, the complainant claims to have been cheated but he has
not delivered any property to the petitioner. There is no allegation against the
petitioner of inducing the complainant in any manner nor even there is any
allegation that the vendor of the petitioner in any manner, induced the
complainant, dishonestly or otherwise.
[2025:JHHC:13959]
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even
if the entire allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are considered to be
true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420, 120B of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner and the continuation
of the entire criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law.
Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the
order dated 18.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class- XXIII,
Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.3747 of 2024 be quashed and set
aside.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated
18.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class- XXIII, Ranchi in
connection with Complaint Case No.3747 of 2024 is quashed and set aside.
10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 07th of May, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
