[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Reena Lata @ Rina Lata vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                    (2026:JHHC:1072)



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No. 3628 of 2022


            Reena Lata @ Rina Lata, d/o late Kauleshwar Dhobi @ Kauleshwar
            Ram, age about 42 years, resident of Village-Gidhour, P.O. & P.S.-
            Gidhour, Dist.-Chatra
                                                     ....             Petitioner


                                         Versus

            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. Chandradeo Dangi, s/o Sri Shivlal Dangi, r/o- Gidhour, P.O. &
                 P.S.-Gidhour, Dist.-Chatra
                                                     ....             Opp. Parties


                                         PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate : Mrs. Kumari Poonam Verma, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though the opposite party no.2 has put in appearance through

his lawyer but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party

no.2 in-spite of repeated calls.

3. 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/set aside the entire criminal proceeding

including the order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2022 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chatra in connection with

(2026:JHHC:1072)

Complaint Case No. 592 of 2020, whereby and where under, the

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chatra has found prima facie

case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code against the petitioner.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took a

loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant with the promise to

return the same within six months but did not repay the said

amount and issued cheques for the purpose of security but the

cheques on being presented by the complainant, in his bank

account for payment, were dishonoured. The complainant filed

two complaint cases but there was mediation consequent upon

which the complainant withdrew the said cases but the petitioner

did not honour the terms and condition of the mediation.

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

solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witness, the

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chatra has found prima facie

case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code.

6. 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 Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

reported in 2025(4) JBCJ 120 [SC] that therein, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law

that in establishing the offence of cheating the complainant was

required to show that accused person had a fraudulent and

(2026:JHHC:1072)

dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or

representation for not fulfilling the agreement for sale of the

property. Leaned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of Saloni Salvi vs. State of

Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025 (4) JBCJ 487 [HC], wherein,

this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh

& Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, paragraph no.10 of which

reads as under:-

"10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )" (emphasis supplied)

wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the

settled principle of law that if the dispute between the parties was

essentially a civil dispute resulting from the breach of contract on

the part of the accused person by not refunding the amount of

advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment

of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hitesh Kumar R

Jain @ Hitesh Jain vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in

2019:JHHC:39269 and submits that therein, the coordinate Bench

(2026:JHHC:1072)

of this Court relied upon the judgment in the case of Sudhir

Kumar Bhalla vs. Jagdish Chand reported in (2008) 7 SCC 137

wherein, it was held that criminal liability by the accused under

the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

are attracted only on account of dishonour of cheque issued in

discharge of liability or debt but not when they were issued as a

security. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that as admittedly the cheques were issued by the

petitioner as security so no offence is made out. Hence, it is

submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous

petition be allowed.

8. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes

the prayer and submits that the materials in the record are

sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of

the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal

miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

that it is a settled principle of law; as has been reiterated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra

Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC

148, paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under:-

"13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya

(2026:JHHC:1072)

Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred."

that mere inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot

give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or

dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the

transaction.

10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against

the petitioner is that the petitioner took a loan which she did not

repay and though she handed certain cheques for the purpose of

security, the same were also dishonoured.

11. It is also a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the

offence of cheating, the accused person must have played

deception since the very inception as has been held by 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

(2026:JHHC:1072)

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)

12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no

allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the

very inception and in the absence of this essential ingredient to

constitute the offence of cheating, 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 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not

made out.

13. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has no

hesitation in holding that since the offence punishable under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the

entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be