Manish Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6012 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Manish Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 September, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                  (2025:JHHC:29253)




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr.M.P. No.1370 of 2022
                              ------

Manish Pandey, aged about 52 years, S/o of Vinod Kumar Pandey, R/o- Shakti Apartment-101, Ashok Nagar, near Surbhi Nursing Home, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Gautam Ghosh, S/o Late Amar Nath Ghosh Proprietor of M/s Nirman, R/o- 1st Floor, Babulal Complex, Kalimati Road, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S.-Sakchi, Dist.-East Singhbhum, ... Opposite Parties Cr.M.P. No.4190 of 2022

------

1. Sandip Agarwal, aged about 52 years, Son of Late Om Prakash Agarwal, resident of 1A-16, Salt Lake Sector 3 Bidhannagar (M) Purbachal North 24 Parganas, P.O. & P.S.-Bidhannagar, Town & Dist.-North 24 Parganas, West Bengal

2. Ashutosh Chandra Dadheech, aged about 74 years, Son of D.P. Dadheech, resident of 29, Hat Lane, Howrah Maidan, Bally Jagachha, P.O. & P.S.-Howrah, Town & Dist.-Howrah, West Bengal. Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Gautam Ghosh, S/o Late Amar Nath Ghosh Proprietor of M/s Nirman, R/o- 1st Floor, Babulal Complex, Kalimati Road, P.O. & P.S.-

Sakchi, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
                                       ...           Opposite Parties


                            ------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P

(2025:JHHC:29253)

Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pratyush Gupta, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No.1370 of 2022)

------

                                       PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. Both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking

the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, with the self-same prayer to quash the order taking

cognizance dated 21.01.2020 and the entire criminal proceeding in

connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No.190 of 2017 corresponding to G.R.

No.2890 of 2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code has been

taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, hence both

these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of by this common

judgment.

3. The allegations against the petitioners of these two Criminal

Miscellaneous Petitions is that petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No.4190 of 2022

and the sole petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1370 of 2022 contacted the

complainant, for the work of transporting various materials on behalf of

their company M/s. Kalpataru, to be made to the M/s Narayani Cement

Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Lipnimal, Bara, Nepal in connection of supply of Dry Fly

Ash from Tata Power Ltd., Jamshedpur. The complainant had to incur

Rs.10,37, 690.67 in executing the work of bagging operation inside Tata

(2025:JHHC:29253)

Power for M/s. Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The complainant

raised a bill of Rs.11,35,200/- excluding Service Tax on the basis of the

mutually agreed rate of Rs.430/- per Matric Ton for bagging of Ash, which

was to be paid, on dispatch of goods. The allegation is that the petitioners

have not paid the said amount. It is next submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false.

Petitioner No.1 in Cr.M.P. No.4190 of 2022 is the Director of M/s. Kalpataru

Agroforest Enterprises Private Ltd. and the petitioner no.2 in Cr.M.P.

No.4190 of 2022 was the Chief of Marketing of the said Kalpataru Agroforest

Enterprises Private Ltd. Neither the petitioners nor the Kalpataru Agroforest

Enterprises Private Ltd., owe any money to the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of this

Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand

& Anr. passed in Cr.M.P. No.221 of 2022 vide order dated 25.07.2023,

submitted that this Court in that case relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Babu Venkatesh & Ors. Vs.

State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639, paragraph no.28 of

which reads as under:-

"28. From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that, the complainant Respondent 2 himself has made averments with regard to the filing of the original suit. In any case, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The High Court has also failed to take into consideration the legal position as has been enunciated by this Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 :

(2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 294 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 153] , and has dismissed the petitions by merely observing that serious allegations are made in the complaint." (Emphasis supplied)

(2025:JHHC:29253)

This Court in that case also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Ravinranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special

Economic Zone Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 806, paragraph

no.24 of which reads as under:-

24. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), it is observed by this Court in paragraphs 42 to 44 as under:

"(iii) Circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person

42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so.

43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision.

44. When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. One such example is Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Aneeta Hada v.

Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661, the Court noted that if a group of persons that guide the business of the company have the criminal intent, that would be imputed to the body corporate and it is in this backdrop, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be understood. Such a position is, therefore, because of statutory intendment making it a deeming fiction. Here also, the principle of "alter ego", was applied only in one direction, namely, where a group of persons that guide the business had criminal intent, that is to be imputed to the body corporate and not the vice versa. Otherwise, there has to be a specific act attributed to the Director or any other person allegedly in control and management of the company, to the effect that such a person was responsible for the acts committed by or on behalf of the company." (Emphasis supplied)

(2025:JHHC:29253)

when the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that since there is no

allegation against the petitioners of having committed any offence in their

individual capacity hence, no offence is made out against the petitioners. It

is then submitted that in that case this Court also relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.N.G. Bharateesh

Reedy vs. Ramesh Ranganathan & Anr. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC

1060, paragraph no.24 of which reads as under:-

"24. None of the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust have been demonstrated on the allegations in the complaint as they stand. The first respondent alleges that the Appellant caused breach of trust by issuing grossly irregular bills, which adversely affected his professional fees. However, an alleged breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment. No element of entrustment has been prima facie established based on the facts and circumstances of the present matter. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are ex facie not made out on the basis of the complaint as it stands."

(Emphasis supplied)

and submits that as there is no allegation of entrustment of any property to

any of the petitioners, the question of dishonest misappropriation of the

same 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 next

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case this

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

Indian in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar reported in

(2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph no.6 of which reads as under:-

"6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC. The only allegation in the complaint petition against the accused persons is

(2025:JHHC:29253)

that they assured the complainant that when they receive the insurance claim amounting to Rs 4,20,000, they would pay a sum of Rs 2,60,000 to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid. Apart from that there is no other allegation in the petition of complaint. It was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the Consumer Forum in relation to the claim of Rs 4,20,000. 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 the petitioners had no intention to cheat from the

very inception, hence the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the

petitioners next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.

Chanduka Hi Tech Steells Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of the Jharkhand &

Anr. passed in Cr.M.P. No.4211 of 2022 vide order dated 08.05.2024 and

submits that this Court in that case 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 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

(2025:JHHC:29253)

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)

Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh @

Shailesh R Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2025) SCC

OnLine SC 1462 and submits that in the fact of that case, where there was an

oral agreement between the parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the facts of that case when upon an oral agreement some money was paid to

the accused person of that case, deprecated the High Court for failing to

consider that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. Learned

counsel for the petitioners then relied upon the judgment of this Court in

the case of Satyabhama Dubey @ Satyabhama Devi & Ors. Vs. the State of

Jharkhand & Anr. passed in Cr.M.P. No.2477 of 2023 vide order dated

06.03.2024 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil

Kumar Agarwal & Anr., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373, para -8 of which

reads as under:-

"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:

(2025:JHHC:29253)

"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."

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

observed that when the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil

dispute, non-payment or under-payment of the price of the goods by itself

does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach

of trust. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by learned

counsel for the petitioners be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P.s appearing for the State in both

these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2

in Cr.M.P. No.1370 of 2022 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners

and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute both

the offences punishable under Sections 420 as well as 406 of the Indian Penal

Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is

submitted that the instant Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after

carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is crystal

clear that from the complaint itself it is crystal clear that the company of the

complainant was entrusted the job of transportation of M/s. Kalpataru

(2025:JHHC:29253)

Agroforest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. So far as the petitioner no.1 in Cr.M.P.

No.4190 of 2022 is concerned, admittedly he has no personal role in the

alleged transaction. The company of the complainant gave the

transportation job allegedly for M/s. Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises Pvt.

Ltd. but learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur did not find any material to proceed

against the said M/s. Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. There is no

allegation of entrustment of any property to any of the petitioners of two

Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions. Obviously, in the absence of any

entrustment of property, the question of dishonest misappropriation of the

same does not arise. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that

materials available in the record is insufficient to constitute the offence

under Sections 406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence

punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the

transaction between the parties is regarding a commercial transaction, which

is denied by the petitioners. There is no overt act attributed to any of the

petitioners of having playing any deception since the beginning of

transaction between the parties.

7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that

even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to

be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420/120B

of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

8. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the

considered view that the continuation of these Criminal Miscellaneous

Petitions will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore this is a fit case

(2025:JHHC:29253)

where the order taking cognizance dated 21.01.2020 and the entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No.190 of 2017

corresponding to G.R. No.2890 of 2017, which is now pending in the court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside

qua the petitioners.

Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 21.01.2020 and the

entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No.190 of

2017 corresponding to G.R. No.2890 of 2017, which is now pending in the

court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, is quashed and set

aside qua the petitioners.

9. Accordingly, both these Cr.M.Ps. stands allowed to the aforesaid

extent only.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22th of September, 2025 AFR/ Rohit