Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Arora (Aged About 51 Years) vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:28101)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1449 of 2023
Rajesh Arora (aged about 51 years), s/o Sri Darshan Lal, posted as
Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Officer, Sector-4, P.O. &
P.S.-Sector-4, Bokaro, Dist.-Bokaro, PIN-827004, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manoj Kumar, s/o Hari Ram Agarwal, resident of Bhagwati
Medical, Fal Mandi, Main Road, Chas, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, Dist.-
Bokaro, PIN-827013, Jharkhand
.... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the
prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 520 of 2020 by
which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has found
prima facie case inter alia against the petitioner for having
committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of
(2025:JHHC:28101)
Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against
the petitioner.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that with the insistent and
persuasion of accused persons of the case particularly the co-
accused-Satyendra Mishra, the complainant agreed and got
convinced to purchase the landed property mortgaged with the
bank by Arjun Kumar Singh through a tripartite agreement but
even though the petitioner paid the entire loan amount of the
mortgager of the property with the bank namely Arjun Kumar
Singh, but the petitioner being the officer of the bank cheated and
committed criminal breach of trust.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Sushil Sethi & Anr. vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh &
Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 240 that therein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case
of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorized
the cases by way of illustrations wherein the powers under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be
exercised either to prevent the abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is next submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India also relied upon its own judgment in the
case of Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. State of Kerela reported in
(2025:JHHC:28101)
(2015) 8 SCC 293, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
reiterated the settled principle of law that for the purpose of
constituting the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to
show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
time of making promise or representation. It is then submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India also relied upon its own judgment in the
case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati vs. CBI reported in (2003) 5
SCC 257 in paragraph no.40 of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India reiterated the settled principle of law as was done in the
case of Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. State of Kerela (supra). It is
further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also relied upon its
own judgment in the case of V.Y Jose vs. State of Gujarat
reported in (2009) 3 SCC 78 which is also to the same effect. It is
then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
that judgment also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also
relied upon its judgment of Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita
Rane reported in (2015) 12 SCC 781, wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that
in the absence of any specific allegation against the Managing
Director of vicarious liability, in the absence of company being
arrayed as a party, no proceedings can be initiated against such
Managing Director or any officer of a company. It is next
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that
(2025:JHHC:28101)
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also relied upon its own
judgment in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat
reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India that when dispute between the parties
constitutes only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts
would not permit a person to be harassed although, no case for
taking cognizance of the offence has been made out. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also relied upon its own
judgment in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of
Uttaranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that
courts must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an
instrument of harassment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Maya Rani vs. State of Jharkhand &
Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 2950 wherein, this Court
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Radheyshyam vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2311, paragraph no. 12 of which reads as under:-
"12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with
any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only
delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to
Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards
consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the
appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because
the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not
amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since
there was no entrustment of property, the offence of
misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach
of trust cannot be said to be made out." (Emphasis supplied)
(2025:JHHC:28101)
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically
held that the amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to
have been entrusted with the accused persons and in that case it
was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that a
mere breach of contract does not constitute the offence of cheating
or breach of trust.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that this Court in that case also relied upon the judgment of Uma
Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 10 SCC
336, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under:-
6. Xxxxx 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 reiterated the
settled principle of law that in the absence of any deception
played at the very inception by the accused person, the offence of
cheating is not made out.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Singh
Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
passed in Cr.M.P. No. 398 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 wherein, this
Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of
(2025:JHHC:28101)
Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 and in paragraph
nos. 10 and 12 of that judgment which reads as under:-
10. It is also a settled principle of law that in order to establish
the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal
Code the following ingredients are to be established :-
(i) Mens rea
(ii) There must be dishonest misappropriation or conversion to
one's own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of
any legal contract
(iii) The accused dishonestly used or disposed of the property.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the
said offence is :-
(i) Deception of a person either by making a false or
misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or
by any other act or omission,
(ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to
either deliver any property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that
person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and
(iii) Such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property
as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,
reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.
Wherein this Court dealt with the essential ingredients of the
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal
Code.
8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are
considered to be true in their entirety, even then the offence for
which the prima facie case has been found by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, is not made out against the petitioner.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
(2025:JHHC:28101)
9. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
opposes the prayer and submits that if the allegation made in the
complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation
and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, are considered to be
true in its entirety then both the offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code is made out. Hence, it
is submitted that 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 in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that the case of the complainant is that the complainant entered
into a tripartite agreement with the mortgager of the property as
well as with the bank to purchase the property belonging to the
mortgager upon paying the entire loan amount for which the
mortgager had mortgaged his property with the bank but perusal
of the record reveals that in his statement under solemn
affirmation the complainant has categorically stated that he has
paid only some rupees of the loan amount. It is crystal clear that it
is a virtual admission of the complainant that he has not fulfilled
his obligation under the tripartite agreement of paying the entire
loan amount taken by the mortgagor -namely Arjun Kumar Singh,
with the bank.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that even if the entire allegations made in the complaint,
statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the
(2025:JHHC:28101)
statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in
their entirety yet, in the absence of any allegation against the
petitioner that the petitioner played deception since the beginning
of the transaction between the parties, 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, in the absence of any allegation of
entrustment of any property to the petitioner or in the absence of
any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted
property against the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that even if the entire allegation made against the
petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable
under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
13. In view of the discussions made above, as neither the offence
punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code nor the
offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is
made out against the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit
case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 520 of 2020 be
quashed and set aside.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(2025:JHHC:28101)
Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 520 of 2020 is
quashed and set aside.
15. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 15th September, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
