Jharkhand High Court
Archana Grover vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:34286 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3949 of 2023
------
Archana Grover, aged about 63 years, wife of Late Rakesh Kumar
Grover, resident of village Baliapur, P.O. & P.S.-Baliapur, District-
Dhanbad.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Santosh Kumar Singh, son of Late Shyama Shankar Singh, resident
of Singh Nagar, Katras More, Jharia, P.O. & P.S.-Jharia, District-
Dhanbad.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. (VC)
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though, notice has been validly served upon the opposite party
no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of
repeated calls.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1899 of 2021 in which
the summoning order has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Dhanbad on 11.07.2022 after finding the prima facie case for the offences
( 2025:JHHC:34286 )
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
the petitioner.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the husband of the petitioner during
his lifetime took Rs.66,45,364/- as loan from the complainant and after the
death of her husband, the business of her husband is being looked after
by the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn
affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has passed the said summoning order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Annapurna B. Uppin and
Others vs. Malsiddappa and Another reported in (2024) 8 SCC 700 and
submits that in para-16 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the settled principle of law that legal heirs of a deceased partner
do not become liable for any liability of the firm, upon the death of the
partner and submits that in this case admittedly the petitioner has not
committed any overt act in taking money by way of loan by her husband,
hence, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani and
Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 823 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
that judgment has dealt with the law relating to the ingredients of Section
406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
( 2025:JHHC:34286 )
7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P and submits that the materials available in the record is sufficient
to constitute both the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian
Penal Code as well as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 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 it is a settled principle of law that mere
inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention
is shown right at the beginning of the transaction; as it is mens rea which is
the crux of the offence, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of
Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph nos.13 of which
reads as under:-
13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415
punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts,
the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating
would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea.
(See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya
Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the
appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had
approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis.
Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2
had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan
amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability
of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a
( 2025:JHHC:34286 )
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the
offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are
taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or
inducement could be found or inferred." (Emphasis supplied)
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains
that the petitioner had no role in taking of money by her husband during
his lifetime. It is a settled principle of law that a criminal liability cannot
be fastened upon legal heirs of a person inheriting his property. Since, the
petitioner was not anyway involved in the transaction of loan taken by
her husband, so no mens rea can be attributed to the petitioner.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
even if the allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in
their entirety still neither of the offences punishable under Section 406 or
420 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, even if the
entire allegation made against them are considered to be true. Hence, 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 entire criminal proceeding in connection
with Complaint Case No.1899 of 2021 in which the summoning order has
been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 11.07.2022, be
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with
Complaint Case No.1899 of 2021 in which the summoning order has been
( 2025:JHHC:34286 )
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 11.07.2022, is quashed
and set aside qua the petitioner only.
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,
if any, is vacated.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 17th of November, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 21/11/2025
