Sanjeev Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                      (2026:JHHC:946)



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No. 3253 of 2024


            1. Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 48 years, s/o Banaras Prasad
            2. Kumari Puspker, aged about 43 years, w/o Sanjeev Kumar
                 Both r/o -98/B Shobha Niketan, Upper Vardhvan Compound,
                 Lalpur, P.O.+P.S.-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand
                                                   ....                 Petitioners


                                         Versus

            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. Deepak Tripathi, son of Rajendra Tripathi, r/o -Indrapuri, Road
                 No.10, Ratu Road, P.O.-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, Dist.-Ranchi,
                 Jharkhand                         ....                 Opp. Parties


                                         PRESENT

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate : Ms. Sanjana Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with

the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the

order taking cognizance dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXII, Ranchi in connection with

Complaint Case No. 1827 of 2019, whereby and where under, the

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXII, Ranchi has found prima

(2026:JHHC:946)

facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341,

417/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners

inducted the complainant as tenant in their shop by representing

the complainant that the said shop is a commercial property. The

complainant continued in possession of the said property by

running his business but ultimately the petitioners did not give

any documents to show that the property concerned is a

commercial property and as the complainant stopped payment of

the rent of the said shop, the petitioner no.2 along with her

brother and others threatened the complainant of dire

consequences unless he hands over the vacant possession of the

shop in question.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to the

complainant or wrongfully restraining him hence, the offence

punishable under Sections 323 or 341 of the Indian Penal Code is

not made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations

made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their

entirety.

5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Maya

Rani vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in

2025:JHHC:19884, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma

(2026:JHHC:946)

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

settled principle of law that unless the accused person plays

deception since the very inception and if the intention to cheat has

developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of Yogesh Beriwal vs. The

State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 4402 of 2022 dated

14.08.2023 wherein, this Court also relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shanker

Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra). It is next submitted by

the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation of

playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between

the parties rather it is the admitted case of the complainant that

the complainant occupied the shop in question for a considerable

period of time. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for

the petitioners that under such circumstances no offence of

cheating is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted

(2026:JHHC:946)

that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be

allowed.

7. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite

party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and

submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are

sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which

prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate

1st Class-XXII, Ranchi. 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 the allegation of causing hurt by slapping and the allegation

of wrongful restraint is against the co-accused person but there is

no allegation against the petitioners of either causing hurt to the

complainant or anyone else or wrongfully restraining the

complainant or anyone else. Under such circumstances, this Court

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

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

still the offence punishable under Section 323 or 341 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out.

9. 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

Shanker Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) that in order

to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play

(2026:JHHC:946)

deception since the beginning of the transaction between the

parties.

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

allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the

beginning of the transaction between the parties rather it is the

admitted case of the complainant that the complainant has been

paying rent to the petitioners for a considerable period of time.

11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are

considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable

under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even

with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXII, Ranchi is made out against the

petitioners therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding

against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and

this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the

order taking cognizance dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXII, Ranchi in connection with

Complaint Case No. 1827 of 2019 be quashed and set aside qua the

petitioners only.

13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order

taking cognizance dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class-XXII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint

(2026:JHHC:946)

Case No. 1827 of 2019 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners

only.