Jharkhand High Court

Nirmal Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                (2025:JHHC:34403)




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr.M.P. No. 3613 of 2022


          Nirmal Oraon, aged about 32 years, s/o Jagarnath Oraon, r/o
          Indraprasth Colony, Jodatalab, Bariatu, P.O.+P.S.-Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi
                                                ....               Petitioners
                                  Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. Sujit Kumar Singh, s/o Krishna Singh, r/o Sainik Colony,
             Dumardaga, P.S.-Khelgaon, Dist.-Ranchi
                                             ....        Opp. Parties

                                     PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate : Ms. Sanjana Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, 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 prosecution including the FIR

being Lalpur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2022 involving the offences

punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

investigation of the case is going on at present and charge sheet

has not yet been submitted.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner entered

into an agreement with the informant to sell 8.01 acres of land at

(2025:JHHC:34403)

the rate of Rs.3,55,000/- per decimal. The informant paid

Rs.2,38,30,000/- to the petitioner but the informant took

possession of 2.62 acres of land only and later on, the informant

came to know that Original Suit No.184 of 2006 is pending in the

court hence, he rescinded the agreement and entered into a fresh

agreement with the petitioner on 26.07.2021. The informant

demanded money back from the petitioner but the petitioner

adopted a delaying tactic and did not return the money.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by

drawing attention of this Court to the copy of the agreement dated

26.07.2021 a copy of which is kept at Annexure-2 of the brief that

therein, it has categorically been mentioned that if the petitioner

cannot sell some land, the proportional amount will be paid by

the petitioner to the informant to be adjusted from the advance

taken by the petitioner and in case, the petitioner loses the case

pending in the court, the petitioner will pay the money to the

purchaser from the informant of total 38 decimals at the rate of

Rs.3,55,000/-. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the copy of the

judgment dated 16.09.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) XI,

Ranchi in Original Suit No. 184 of 2006 that though the petitioner

was not a party to the suit but the said suit has been dismissed

and the finding given by the trial court before dismissing the suit

that none of the parties could establish their right, title and

interest over the suit land.

(2025:JHHC:34403)

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Natesan

vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401 and

submits that in paragraph no.10 thereof, the relevant portion of

which reads as under:-

"10. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Merely because the original accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or might not have paid the amount in lieu of one month's notice before terminating the agreement by itself cannot be aid to be a cheating and or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as alleged. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court."

that non-payment of the amount due and payable under an

agreement itself cannot constitute the offence of cheating or

criminal breach of trust.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment

of this Court in the case of Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh &

Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. dated 01.03.2024 passed

in Cr.M.P. No. 2241 of 2021 and submits that in that case, this

Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. The State of Punjab &

Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 paragraph-13 of which

reads as under:-

"13. 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. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no

(2025:JHHC:34403)

allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court."

wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the

settled principle of law that the breach of contract does not give

rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent and

dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the

transaction between the parties.

8. It is then submitted that in this respect, this Court in that case,

also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar &

Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph No.6 of which

reads as under :-

"6. Xxxxx 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

(2025:JHHC:34403)

precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC." (Emphasis supplied)

and also this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai &

Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2022) 7

SCC 124 paragraph-38 of which reads as under:-

"38. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as held by this Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint filed by Respondent 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants." (Emphasis supplied)

9. It is next submitted that in that case, so far as the offence

punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is

concerned, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs.

State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663,

paragraph-18 of which reads as under :-.

"18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that

(2025:JHHC:34403)

money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust."

Emphasis supplied)

and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held

that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not

sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused. It

must also be shown that the accused dishonestly disposed of the

same in some way or dishonestly retained the same.

10. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the dispute

between the parties is purely a civil dispute. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the

offence punishable under Section 420 nor the offence punishable

under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against

the petitioner, even if the entire allegation made against the

petitioner in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety.

Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal

miscellaneous petition be allowed.

11. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the

prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal

miscellaneous petition.

12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the

opposite party no.2 has no comments to make so far as the prayer

made in this criminal miscellaneous petition is concerned.

(2025:JHHC:34403)

13. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur

and Others v. Jagnar Singh and Another, reported in (2009) 14

SCC 696, paragraph no.10 of which reads as under:-

"10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )" (emphasis supplied)

that therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated

the settled principle of law that if the dispute between the parties

was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract

on the part of the accused person by non-refunding the amount of

advance, the same would not constitute an offence of cheating.

14. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains

that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute.

From the materials available in the record, it is evident that, the

informant could not even make out a case of breach of contract.

There is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing

deception since the beginning of the transaction between the

parties. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered

(2025:JHHC:34403)

view that even if the entire allegation 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.