Jharkhand High Court
Navin Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:32830)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2914 of 2021
Navin Kumar Verma, aged about 41 yrs., s/o Ravindra Kumar Verma,
R/o Lal Cottage, A-81, 3rd Floor, Arya Samaj Mandir, Defence Colony,
South Delhi, P.O. & P.S.-Defense Colony, Dist.-New Delhi.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. M/s Chauhan Filling Station through one of its partner namely
Arun Kumar Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Bachu Pd. Singh,
a registered partnership firm having its office at Village -Nagar,
P.O. & P.S. -Hunterganj, District -Chatra.
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
: Mr. Jayesh Anand, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the
prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with
C.P. Case No. 1399 of 2019 as well as the order dated 03.09.2021,
passed by the Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Chatra whereby and
where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Chatra
found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(2025:JHHC:32830)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the
petitioner does not want to press the prayer to quash the entire
criminal proceeding of the said C.P. Case No. 1399 of 2019 so far
as the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is concerned and confines his prayer to quash the
portion of the said order dated 03.09.2021 by which the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chatra found prima facie case for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code in
respect of the petitioner is concerned.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along
with his father came to the petrol pump of which the complainant
is a partner and told the complainant to give them diesel,
promising to pay money for that. On being thus assured, the
complainant gave the petitioner diesel worth Rs.50,00,000/- and
odd rupees and when the complainant asked for money, the same
was paid by the petitioner by issuing five cheques worth
Rs.10,00,000/- each of different dates. On 29.08.2019, the
complainant presented all the five cheques in the bank account
but the cheques were dishonoured because of insufficiency of
funds. The complainant intimated about the dishonour of the
cheques to petitioner over telephone and also issued notice
through his Advocate which was received by the petitioner but
the petitioner failed to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques.
5. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the
(2025:JHHC:32830)
learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Chatra found prima facie case
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioner as well as his father.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
entire criminal proceeding so far as the father of the petitioner
namely Ravindra Kumar Verma has been quashed and set aside
by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 2896 of
2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 858 of 2020 dated 29.08.2024 and
submits that this Court reiterated the settled principle of law 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 and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the
same will not amount to cheating; as has been observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar
Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi
Race Club (1940) Ltd. And Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr., reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 2248 para-36 of which
reads as under:-
"36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any
doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the
property passes to the purchaser from the seller when
the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods
(2025:JHHC:32830)
passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the
purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller.
Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any
criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on
charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the
consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed
to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-
payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal
case will be maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 &
Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) v.
State of Jharkhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]"
(emphasis supplied)
and submits that for non-payment of the consideration amount
of a sale of goods, there can be civil remedy for non-payment of
the consideration amount but no criminal case will be
maintainable for it.
8. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order so far as it relates
to the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code
against the petitioner be quashed and set aside.
9. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as
prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition
and submits that in paragraph no.18 of the complaint, it has been
specifically averred that the conduct of the petitioner shows that
the accused persons had dishonest intention since the beginning
and have played deliberate fraud. So, the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881 is made out against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that
(2025:JHHC:32830)
this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that the main allegation is against the petitioner. The
petitioner paid the consideration amount of the diesel purchased
by five cheques worth Rs.10,00,000/- each but the same were
dishonoured.
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, this is a clear-cut case of sale of goods by
the petrol pump of which the complainant is a partner to the
petitioner. Admittedly the consideration amount has been paid by
the petitioner by way of cheques. So, under such facts of the case,
in the considered opinion of this Court, the materials in the record
are insufficient to show any deception played by the petitioner
since the beginning of the transaction, if any, ever took place
between the petitioner and the complainant. 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
of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
12. Hence in the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated
03.09.2021, passed by the Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Chatra in
connection with C.P. Case No. 1399 of 2019 is quashed and set
aside so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian
(2025:JHHC:32830)
Penal Code is concerned but the said order is maintained so far as
the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is concerned.
13. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 3rd November, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 04/11/2025
