Amar Nath Ray vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1032 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Amar Nath Ray vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                            (2026:JHHC:3852)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No.3678 of 2023
                                          ------

1. Amar Nath Ray, aged about 58 years, s/o Dayanidhi Ray, resident of Plot No.134, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.- B.S. City, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand)

2. Bimalesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 54 years, s/o Brijnandan Pandey, resident of Quarter No.620, Sector-3/B, Bokaro Steel City, P.O.- Sector 3, P.S.- B.S. City, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand) ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sangita Agrawal, w/o Ajay Kumar Agrawal, r/o of Plot No. A/17, New Saree Sangam, City Centre, Sector- 4, P.O. & P.S.- Sector- 4, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand) ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioner        : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2         : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate
                                         Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate
                                              ------
                                        PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

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

Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal

proceedings of C.P. Case No.755 of 2021 including the order dated

19.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro

whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has found

(2026:JHHC:3852)

prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 427,

506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner made

the husband of the complainant to spend Rs.20-25 lakhs for purchasing

a land under litigation and also took Rs.15,00,000/- for a boundary wall

to be constructed over the said land. Further, the petitioners

blackmailed the husband of the complainant by taking advantage of

being in possession of the blank cheques signed by the complainant and

instituted a false case against the complainant, her husband and the

father-in-law of the complainant, by falsely stating that the petitioners

gave Rs.1,15,00,000/- as loan to the complainant, her husband and her

father-in-law. There is further allegation against the petitioners that the

petitioners, by forgery lowered the standard of the family and business

of the complainant and committed theft of the blank cheques signed by

the complainant, which was kept in the shop and distributed the same

to the co-accused persons for institution of different cases against the

complainant. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the

complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry

witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case as

already indicated above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is next

fixed for appearance and charge has not yet been framed. It is next

submitted that the petitioner No.2 lodged Bokaro Sector IV P.S. Case

No.156 of 2017 against the complainant, her husband and her father-in-

(2026:JHHC:3852)

law in which charge-sheet was also submitted and cognizance of the

offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code has been taken and the petitioner No.1 is the witness in the said

case and as a retaliation to set up a defence, this false case has been

foisted. It is further submitted that even if the entire allegations made

against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still

none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found

by the learned Magistrate, is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it

is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed.

5. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned

counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently

oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the materials in the record are

sufficient to constitute each of the offence in respect of which the

learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case. Therefore, it is

submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, 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

pertinent to mention here there is no allegation against the petitioners

of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the

parties. It is needless to mention here it is a settled principle of law as

has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

(2026:JHHC:3852)

Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in

(2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph-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 in order to constitute the offence of

cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the

transaction between the parties and if the intention to cheat has

developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

7. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire

allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint, statement on

solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are

considered to be true in their entirety still in the absence of any

allegation against the petitioners of having played the deception since

the very inception; the offence punishable under Section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code is not made out.

8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian

Penal Code is concerned, as has been observed by 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-28 of

which reads as under:-

(2026:JHHC:3852)

"28. "Entrustment" of property under Section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, "in any manner entrusted with property". So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of "trust". A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code."

9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation made

against the petitioners in the complaint is that the petitioners made the

husband of the complainant to spend money in purchasing a land

which was under litigation but the same has been improvised in the

statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation by stating that the

petitioners, for the purpose of resolving the dispute of the property

purchased by the husband of the complainant and to construct

boundary wall, took Rs.15,00,000/- but there is no allegation against the

petitioners of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. In

the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court is of the considered

view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in

the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of

enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety still the

offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not

made out against the petitioners.

10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian

Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against the

petitioners of destroying any property by mischief. Therefore, this

Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made

(2026:JHHC:3852)

against the petitioners in the complaint, statement on solemn

affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are considered to be

true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 427 of the

Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian

Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of

committing criminal intimidation. Hence, this Court is of the

considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the

petitioners in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the

statement of enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their

entirety still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

12. In view of the discussions made above, since none of the offences

in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has

found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners even if the

entire allegations made in the complaint, statement on solemn

affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are considered to be

true in their entirety. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view

that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners

will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, it is a fit case where the

entire criminal proceedings of C.P. Case No.755 of 2021 including the

order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st

Class, Bokaro, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named

above.

(2026:JHHC:3852)

13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of C.P. Case No.755

of 2021 including the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro, is quashed and set aside qua the

petitioners named above.

14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of February, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 16/02/2026