Jharkhand High Court
Pranav Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:29423)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3212 of 2013
Pranav Kumar Singh, son of Shri Madan Mohan Singh, resident of Qr.
No.240/2/6, Chhota Govindpur, P.O. & P.S.-Govindpur, Town-
Jamshedpur, Dist.-Singhbhum East (Jharkhand)
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Naresh Kumar Agrawal, son of Hanuman Prasad Agrawal,
resident of Line No.26, House No. 374, A-Block, Tuila Dungri,
P.O. & P.S.-Golmuri, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
(Jharkhand)
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
: Mr. Prince Pandey, Advocate
: Ms. Jagriti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this
interlocutory application.
3. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is rejected as not
pressed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
(2025:JHHC:29423)
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
taking cognizance dated 21.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Golmuri P.S.
Case No. 64 of 2013.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner entered
into an agreement for sale with the informant-complainant for
selling his brickkiln for a consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-. Rs.
11,00,000/- was paid in advance but the petitioner did not hand
over the possession and relevant documents of the said brickkiln
to the informant-complainant nor returned the advance of
Rs.11,00,000/-.
4. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of
Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311,
para 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
(2025:JHHC:29423)
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)
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the
amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been
entrusted with the accused person by the complainant and merely
because the seller is refusing to register the sale, it does not
amount to misappropriation of the advance amount paid. Hence,
it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner even if
the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to
be true in its entirety.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Ambuj Hotel & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.
represented through its Director Neelu Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar 3947 and
submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar
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
(2025:JHHC:29423)
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 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 between the parties.
6. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing
deception since the beginning of the transaction between the
parties. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the undisputed
agreement for sale entered into between the parties, a copy of
which is kept at Annexure-2 of this brief, it is submitted that it has
categorically been mentioned in clause-4 of the same, that the
petitioner has handed over the brickkiln to the informant-
complainant and the subsequent development is that son of the
complainant namely Vikash Kumar Agrawal @ Prince who was
running the said brickkiln was unable to run the same and thus,
the brickkiln has returned to the petitioner, therefore, it is
submitted that the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian
Penal Code is also not made out; even if the entire allegation made
(2025:JHHC:29423)
against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety. It is
lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
7. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the
prayer as made by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous
petition and submits that if the allegation made against the
petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, both the
offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal
Code is made out. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 that the informant-complainant filed C1
Case No. 429 of 2003 in the court Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jamshedpur and the same was referred to police under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. basing upon which Golmuri P.S. Case No. 64 of
2013 was registered and police took up investigation of the case
and found the allegation against the petitioner to be true and
submitted charge sheet for having committed the offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code and
charge has already been framed but no witness has been
examined as yet. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that so far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredient of which has
(2025:JHHC:29423)
been mentioned in paragraph no.11 of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam &
Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra), paragraph
no.11 of which reads as under:-
11. For an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC,
the following ingredients must exists:
i. The accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted
with dominion over property;
ii. The accused had dishonestly misappropriated or
converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly
used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any
other person to do so; and
iii. Such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal
should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing
the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of
any legal contract which the person has made, touching
the discharge of such trust.
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, as has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.12 of the case of
Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another
(supra), that the accused person refusing to register the sale, the
same does not amount to misappropriation of the advance
payment therefore, in the absence of any allegation of any
dishonest misappropriation of any property against the petitioner,
even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are
considered to be true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable
under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
(2025:JHHC:29423)
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs.
State of Bihar & Anr. (supra), the essential ingredients to
constitute the said offence is that the accused must have played
deception since the very inception of the transaction between the
parties.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains
that as per the clause 4 of the agreement for sale entered into
between the petitioner and the informant-complainant, the
petitioner has handed over the possession of the brickkiln to the
informant-complainant. There is no specific allegation against the
petitioner that the petitioner played deception since the very
inception of the transaction between the parties.
12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are
considered to be true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable
under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
13. In view of the discussions made above, since neither the offence
punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code nor the
offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is
made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegation made
against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety
therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding
including the order taking cognizance dated 21.09.2013 passed by
(2025:JHHC:29423)
the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in
connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 64 of 2013 be quashed and
set aside.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 21.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Golmuri P.S.
Case No. 64 of 2013 is quashed and set aside.
15. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
16. In view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition,
interlocutory applications, if any, is disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd September, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
