Jharkhand High Court
Archana Rani vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:34714)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3086 of 2024
1. Archana Rani, aged about 44 years, wife of Bhushan Kumar,
2. Bhushan Kumar, aged about 49 years, son of Bhageran Thakur
Both resident of I-Type, 9/9, Adityapur, S Type, Near Hanuman
Mandir, P.O.-Adityapur, P.S.-Adityapur, Dist.-Seraikella-
Kharsawan
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jainendra Kumar Jyoti, son of Surendra Prasad Singh, C.E.O. of
Aruna Infrastructure and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Office Address Plot No.
165, Shanti Heritage, Shere Punjab Chowk, Adityapur, P.O.-
Adityapur, P.S.-Adityapur, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : None
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire
criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2024 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in
connection with Complaint Case No. 3569 of 2022 whereby and
where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur
(2025:JHHC:34714)
has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections
406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Though notice has validly been 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.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are
owners of certain land and they have entered into a development
agreement with the company of the complainant. As per the terms
of the development agreement, a general power of attorney was
executed. The complainant invested crores of rupees in the said
project but in violation of the terms and condition of the
development agreement, the petitioners have revoked the power
of attorney.
5. On the basis of the complaint petition, statement of the
complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the
inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by
relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Brajesh
Chand Vidhyarthi @ Brajesh Chandra Vidyaarthi & Ors. vs. The
State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025:JHHC:24069 that
therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of
(2025:JHHC:34714)
Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360, paragraph no. 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
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." (Emphasis supplied)
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the
settled principle of law that unless there is a deception played by
the accused persons since the beginning of the transaction, the
offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the India
Penal Code is not made out.
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that in that case this Court also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar
(2025:JHHC:34714)
Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 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)
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the
settled principle of law that the sine qua non to constitute the
offence of cheating, is playing deception since the beginning of the
transaction between the parties.
8. It is further submitted that in that case this Court further 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
(2025:JHHC:34714)
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
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)
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the
settled principle of law 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 person. It must also be shown that the accused
person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or
dishonestly retained the same.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph nos. 11 of which reads as
under:-
"11. Having observed the background principles applicable
herein, we need to consider the individual charges against
the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section
406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan
transaction between the parties. It falls from the record
that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant
circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an
admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount,
Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is
still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a
difference between simple payment/investment of money
and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a
promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto,
constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust
contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear
case of entrustment. (Emphasis supplied)
(2025:JHHC:34714)
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the
settled principle of law that mere breach of a promise, agreement
or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the
criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Indian
Penal Code for which punishment has been provided in Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code without there being a clear case of
entrustment.
10. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is then
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is
absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of playing
deception since the beginning of the transaction and there is
absolutely no allegation of any entrustment to the petitioners. It is
then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in
the absence of any entrustment, the question of dishonest
misappropriation of any entrusted property does not arise and in
the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406
of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is further submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the general power
of attorney has been revoked because of the failure on the part of
the complainant to comply with the terms and condition of the
development agreement and at best the dispute between the
parties is a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal case has been
given to it for wreaking vengeance and harassing the petitioners.
(2025:JHHC:34714)
Hence it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
11. Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer and
submits that the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute
both the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian
Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that there is absolutely no allegation against the
petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the
transaction between the parties and in the absence of any
deception being played by the petitioners since the beginning of
the transaction between the parties, this Court is of the considered
view that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is not made out even if the entire allegations made
against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety.
13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, dishonest misappropriation of the
entrusted property is a sine-qua-non.
14. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation of any entrustment made to any of the petitioners and
in the absence of any entrustment, the question of dishonest
misappropriation of any entrusted property does not arise.
(2025:JHHC:34714)
Therefore, in the absence of any dishonest misappropriation of
any entrusted property, certainly, the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the
entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to
be true in their entirety.
15. In view of the discussions made above, as neither the offence
punishable under Section 420 nor the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against the
petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is
of the considered view that continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process
of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding
including the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint
Case No. 3569 of 2022 be quashed and set aside against the
petitioners.
16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3569 of 2022
is quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
17. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 20th November, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 24/11/2025
