Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Chhaparia vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:33159)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 125 of 2023
Vijay Kumar Chhaparia, aged about 72 years, son of late Mishri Lal
Chhaparia, resident of Bano Manzil Road, Gahrikhana Chowk, Harmu
Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist.-Ranchi-834001,
Jharkhand .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deepak Sarawagi, son of late Raj Kumar Sarawagi, Proprietor of
M/s Akshit Agencies, K.C. Complex, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali,
Dist.-Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand and resident of Kanke Road,
Opposite Petrol Pump, P.O.-Gonda, P.S.-Gonda, Dist.-Ranchi-
834008, Jharkhand
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Mukesh Kr. Banka, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
: Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate
: Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocate
: Mr. Arpan Kumar, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a
prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous
petition.
(2025:JHHC:33159)
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.)
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 including the order
taking cognizance dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case
No. 3837 of 2020 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offence punishable
under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner purchased various
articles from the shop of the complainant in the name and style of
"Akshit Agencies" of which the complainant is the proprietor and
intermittently the petitioner was paying money but he never paid
the entire dues of the petitioner and as on 05.05.2020 a sum of Rs.
29,95,152/- was due and payable by the petitioner but he did not
pay the same to the complainant, even though the complainant
served legal notice upon him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar
(2025:JHHC:33159)
Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336,
paragraph no.6 of which reads as under:-
"6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx
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. In the present
case it has nowhere been stated that at the very
inception there was any intention on behalf of the
accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent
for an offence under Section 420 IPC." (Emphasis
supplied)"
And submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute
the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the
beginning of the transaction between the parties but if the
intention has developed later on, the same will not amount to
cheating.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil
Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736
and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated that criminal proceeding should not be encouraged
when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of process of
the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Anr. vs State of Kerela & Ors.
reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293 and submits that in that case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled
(2025:JHHC:33159)
principle of law as has been observed in the case of Uma Shankar
Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar
Ghai & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2022) 7
SCC 124 and submits that therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has observed that in order to attract the ingredients under
Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, it is imperative on the
part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an
intention on the part of the petitioner and/or others to cheat
and/or to defraud the complainant right from the inception.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023) 5 SCC
360 and submits that a breach of contract does not give rise to
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash
Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. reported in (2007) 7 SCC
373 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that
non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself
does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or
criminal breach of trust by thus observing in paragraph no.8 of the
said judgment which reads as under:-
(2025:JHHC:33159)
"8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a
civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price
of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an
offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence,
having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust
contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to
have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the
Penal Code reads, thus:
"405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in
any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly
uses or disposes of that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract,
express or implied, which he has made touching the
discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other
person so to do, commits 'criminal breach of trust'."
Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of
the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any
statement in that behalf has been made." (Emphasis
supplied)
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Prabhat Ranjan Mallick & Anr. vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. dated 18.09.2025 decided in
Cr.M.P. No. 96 of 2023 reported in 2025:JHHC:29068 and submits
that, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Jaswant Lal
Nathalal reported in AIR 1968 SC 700 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that
mere transaction of sale or purchase does not amount to
entrustment which is an essential ingredient to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
(2025:JHHC:33159)
10. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that
the materials available in the record is sufficient to constitute both
the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian
Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, this Court finds that it is the
admitted case of the complainant that there is long standing
business relationship between the petitioner and the complainant
and it is also an admitted case of the complainant that the
petitioner used to pay money to the complainant from time to
time in discharge of his debt regarding purchase of various
articles. There is no allegation against the petitioner of having any
intention to deceive the complainant since the beginning of the
transaction between the parties. In the absence of this essential
ingredient, 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 Indian Penal Code is not made out.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma vs.
Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (supra) at best this is a case of
underpayment of the price of goods but it is a settled principle of
(2025:JHHC:33159)
law that the same is insufficient to constitute the offence
punishable either under Section 420 or under Section 406 of Indian
Penal Code more so, in the absence of any allegation of playing
deception since the beginning of the transaction between the
parties or the allegation of entrustment or dishonest
misappropriation of the entrusted property.
13. 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 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
14. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in
respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi
found prima facie case is made out even if the entire allegations
made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their
entirety, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of
process of the law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
23.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 3837 of 2020 be
quashed and set aside.
15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case
No. 3837 of 2020 is quashed and set aside.
(2025:JHHC:33159)
16. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 6th November, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 07/11/2025
