[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Rashi Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:2775)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2100 of 2024
Rashi Singh, aged about 40 years, daughter of late Rabindra Kumar
Singh @ Ravindra Kumar Singh, resident of Ela House, Shiv Niketan,
Seal Kothi, Bomapass Town, B., Deoghar, Deosang, P.O.-Deoghar, P.S.-
Deoghar (Town), Dist.-Deoghar
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Premnath Khawade, aged about 40 years, son of Bholanath
Khawade, resident of Sarla Sadan, Near Baidhnath Talkies, P.O.-
Deoghar, P.S.-Deoghar (Town), Dist.-Deoghar
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
(Through Video Conferencing)
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kr. Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate
.....
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 FIR of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 596 of
2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 406 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of C.J.M.,
Deoghar.
(2026:JHHC:2775)
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not
yet been submitted.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the informant
negotiated for purchase of a land with Amresh Kumar Singh and
Amresh Kumar Singh facilitated the informant having
conversation with the petitioner over phone. The further
allegation is that though Amresh Kumar Singh has taken in total
Rs. 26,00,000/- as advance for selling the land but he is not selling
the land to the informant nor returning the money in terms of the
agreement dated 25.08.2021.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Ankur Gupta vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in
2017 SCC OnLine SC 2023 that therein, in the facts of that case
when the accused person is not a party to the transaction between
the complainant and the co-accused person, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has observed that there is no reason as to why he
should face the criminal trial and that too for the offences
punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It
is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
this case also the admitted case of the informant is that the
petitioner is not a party to the agreement to sell nor there is any
allegation of payment of any money to the petitioner.
(2026:JHHC:2775)
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2024:JHHC:34087 and submits that
in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168, para-15 of
which reads as under:-
"15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind
that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the
offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention
of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged
by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is
not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction that is the time when the offence is said to have
been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist
of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is
necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest
intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere
failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable
intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the
promise cannot be presumed." (Emphasis supplied)
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the
settled principle of law that mere breach of contract cannot give
rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been
committed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in that
case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur and Others v.
Jagnar Singh and Another, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696
(2026:JHHC:2775)
wherein, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that if
the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute
resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused
person by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would
not constitute an offence of cheating.
8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
in that case this Court next 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
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, it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India 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 and if the intention to cheat has developed
later on, the same will not amount to cheating.
(2026:JHHC:2775)
9. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are
considered to be true in its entirety, still neither the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the
offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is
made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this
criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
10. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and
submits that if the entire allegations made in the FIR are
considered to be true in its entirety, then the petitioner is squarely
liable for being prosecuted for having committed both the
offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code
as well as under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code hence,
quashing of the criminal proceeding at this nascent stage will
prejudice the investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that this
criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that
the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is not the party to
the agreement to sell. The undisputed fact also remains that the
petitioner never came face to face with the informant. The only
allegation against the petitioner is that there was some telephonic
conversation between the informant and the petitioner at the
(2026:JHHC:2775)
behest of the co-accused-Amresh Kumar Singh and Amresh
Kumar Singh is no way related to the petitioner.
12. Under such circumstances, in view of the settled principle of law
as recorded in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment,
particularly in the case of Ankur Gupta vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
(supra), this Court is of the considered view that since the
petitioner is not the party to the agreement to sell or any
transaction between the complainant and the co-accused person,
there is no rhyme or reason as to why the petitioner should face
the criminal prosecution hence, continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process
of law and this is a fit case where the FIR of Deoghar (Town) P.S.
Case No. 596 of 2023 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the FIR of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 596 of
2023 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
14. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 3rd February, 2026
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 05/02/2026
