[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:4330)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.595 of 2023
------
Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 58 years, son of Late Ganga
Ram Sharma, resident of B. N. Saha DAV Teachers' Training College,
Sirsia, Giridih. PIN 815312 P.O. + P.S. Giridih ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Gautam Kumar s/o Sri Surendra Kumar, r/o Pandedih, Behind
Mansa Mandir, Post Office & Police Station- Giridih, District Giridih.
PIN 815312, P.O.- Giridih; P.S.- Giridih ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, 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 order dated 05.12.2022
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih whereby
and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie
case for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the
Principal of B.N.S.D.A.V Teachers' Training College, Sirsiya, Giridih.
The complainant was selected as a Lecturer in the said college at the
(2026:JHHC:4330)
monthly salary of Rs.35,500/- but after joining, he was given a lesser
amount. He worked in the said college for twenty-seven (27) months
but during that period, he was paid Rs.35,000-40,000/- only. He
resigned from the college and upon meeting the petitioner, the
complainant asked for the money. The petitioner refused to give any
money and threatened that he would implicate the complainant in false
case. The petitioner, in connivance with one Sunil Kumar Verma
submitted a false complaint to the D.G.P. which upon enquiry, was
found to be false. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the
complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry
witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence as already indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation
against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that even if entire
allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true still
none of the offence in respect of which the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offence, is made out against the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the case is next fixed to 12.03.2026 for evidence before
charge and the charge has not yet been framed. It is also submitted that
there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since
the very inception of the transaction between the parties and in the
absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. It is then
submitted that in the absence of any allegation of any provocation being
(2026:JHHC:4330)
given to the complainant to commit breach of peace or any other
offence or to create any alarm, the offences punishable under Section
504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be
allowed.
5. Learned 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 petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the
materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in
respect of which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case.
Hence, it is submitted that this 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
pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under
Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled
principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of 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
(2026:JHHC:4330)
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. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the very
beginning. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the entire
salary due to the informant, was not paid. There is no allegation against
the petitioner of inducing the complainant to part with any property.
Under such circumstances, particularly in the absence of any allegation
that the petitioner played deception since the very inception, this Court
has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made
against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the
offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out.
8. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207
paragraphs-24 and 25 of which read as under:-
"24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint
against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two
or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a
revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy
(2026:JHHC:4330)
language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours
arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying
him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does
not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been
enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The
intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a
person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the
complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para
13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona
Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1
SCC (Cri) 715] .
25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of
criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona
Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14
SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when
question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are
made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused
the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC,
what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the
prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn.
with regard to proof of offence states the following:
"... The prosecution must prove:
(i) That the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his
person, reputation or property; or to the person,
reputation or property of someone in whom he was
interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that
person; or to cause that person to do any act which he
was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act
which he was legally entitled to do as a means of
avoiding the execution of such threat."
(emphasis supplied)
A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy
all the ingredients as noticed above."
has held that the mere allegation that the appellant threatened
the complainant does not by itself satisfies the ingredients as laid down
in paragraph-13 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 44.
(2026:JHHC:4330)
9. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no
allegation that the threat allegedly given by the petitioner consisted of
any injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant or
someone else in whom the complainant is interested nor is there any
allegation that the petitioner did the threatening with the intention to
cause alarm to the complainant or to cause the complainant to do any
act which he was not legally bound to do. Under such circumstances,
this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations
made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety
still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code
is not made out.
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner of
inflicting any intentional insult of such a degree that could provoke the
complainant to break public peace or to commit any other offence. In
the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court is of the considered
view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are
considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
11. In view of the discussions made above since none of the offences
in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial
Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih, is made out even if the entire allegations
made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety,
this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of this
(2026:JHHC:4330)
criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of
process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case where the order dated
05.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih,
be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih, is quashed and set aside against
the petitioner named above.
13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 16th of February, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 18/02/2026
