[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mrs. Neelima Singh @ Neelima Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[ 2026:JHHC:1426]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3134 of 2023
1. Mrs. Neelima Singh @ Neelima Kumari, aged about
40 years, daughter of late Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh
2. Miss Madhuri Kumar, aged about 30 years, daughter
of Late Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh
3. Mrs. Soni Kumar, aged about 42 years, daughter of
Late Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh
All residents of House No. 297/B3, Basant Vihar,
Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District -
Ranchi, PIN Code-834001. ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Nihit Garodia, son of Shri Shravan Kumar Garodia,
resident of 5/1, Vasant Vihar, P.O. Kanke, P.S. -
Gonda, District-Ranchi, PIN Code-834001.
...... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 3150 of 2023
Mrs. Meera Singh, aged about 67 years, wife of late
Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, resident of House No.
297/B3 Basant Vihar, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. -
Gonda, District-Ranchi, PIN Code -834001.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Nihit Garodia, son of Shri Shravan Kumar Garodia,
resident of 5/1, Vasant Vihar, P.O. Kanke, P.S.
Gonda, District Ranchi, PIN Code - 834001.
...... Opposite Parties
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Supriya Dayal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishta, Spl.PP
Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.PP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shailesh Poddar , Adv. ( In CrMP. 3150 of 2023)
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties. No one turns up on behalf of the
Opp. Party no. 2 in CrMP No. 3134 of 2023 in spite of
1 Cr.M.P. Nos. 3134 of 2023 with 3150 of 2023
[ 2026:JHHC:1426]
repeated calls, though Opp. Party no. 2 in Cr.M.P. no. 3150 of
2023 appeared through a lawyer.
2. Since both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed
with the selfsame common prayer and have arisen from the
common P.S. case no. being Gonda P.S. case no. 98 of 2023, hence,
both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are being disposed of
by this common judgment.
3. These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking
the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the
prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Gonda P.S. case no. 98 of 2023
including the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by learned JMFC,
XXI, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate,
has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections
406, 420, 120B of the IPC.
4. The brief fact of the case is that all the three petitioners of CrMP
No. 3134 of 2023 are the daughters and the sole petitioner of
CrMP no. 3150 of 2023 is the wife of Late Jitendra Kumar Singh
and the allegation against them is that during his life time,
Jitendra Kumar Singh took ₹ 52 lakhs as advance by entering into
an agreement with the informant to construct a multi-storied
building in the year 2012 but Jitendra Kumar Singh died in the
year 2016 and after his death, his family members, who have been
arrayed as accused persons, assured the informant that they will
honour the agreement entered into by Late Jitendra Kumar Singh
and a fresh agreement was entered into between the informant
and the sole petitioner of CrMP No. 3150 of 2023 by the said the
sole petitioner further taking Rs. 10 lakhs by deceit and
fraudulent means but the petitioners have not made available the
said land but got the said land mutated in the name of the sole
petitioner of CrMP no. 3150 of 2023. On the basis of the written
report submitted by the informant, the police registered Gonda
P.S. case no. 98 of 2023 and took up the investigation of the case
and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted
2 Cr.M.P. Nos. 3134 of 2023 with 3150 of 2023
[ 2026:JHHC:1426]
charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the IPC and
on the basis of the same learned JMFC, XXI, Ranchi has taken
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
120B of the IPC.
5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
that the allegations against the petitioners are false and the
petitioners are ladies and the petitioners were not party to the
Development Agreement entered into by Late Jitendra Kumar
Singh with the informant on 06.07.2012. It is next submitted that
though the informant entered into a new Development
Agreement with the petitioner of CrMP No. 3150 of 2023 on
08.05.2016 to develop a property on the same terms and condition
as of the earlier agreement but the opposite party no. 2 -
informant failed to complete the project within the stipulated
period of 48 months ending on 07.05.2020 as the Opp. Party no. 2-
the informant failed to complete the obligation in both the
agreements even after 11 years and has not done any
development activity. It is further submitted that the Opp. Party
no. 2 is pressurizing the petitioners to enter into a new agreement
but when the said offer was denied, he has lodged the FIR on
fictitious grounds for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. It is
next submitted that in his letter dated 01.06.2022, addressed to the
petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 3134 of 2023, the copy of which has
been kept at Annexure 5, the claim of the informant as made in
the FIR about payment of Rs. 10 lakhs or the total amount of Rs.
70-71 lakhs have been paid as mentioned in the FIR, did not find
place and the said letter only mentions about Rs. 52 lakhs being
paid to Late Jitendra Kumar Singh during his lifetime; as the same
is only the fact and the claim of the informant of having paid ₹ 10
lakhs to the sole petitioner of CrMP No. 3150 of 2023, is out and
out false. It is next submitted that the copy of the agreement
allegedly entered into by the informant and the sole petitioner of
3 Cr.M.P. Nos. 3134 of 2023 with 3150 of 2023
[ 2026:JHHC:1426]
CrMP No. 3150 of 2023 also do not disclose payment of ₹ 10 lakhs
by the informant to the sole petitioner of CrMP No. 3150 of 2023.
6. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners that on being approached by the proprietorship firm of
the informant in Arbitration Application no. 30 of 2025, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, has appointed an arbitrator and the
matter is pending before the arbitrator. It is next submitted that
the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and there is no
allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any property nor
there is any allegation against the petitioners of playing deception
since beginning of the transaction between the parties, hence, it is
submitted that prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous
petition be allowed.
7. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 of
CrMP No. 3150 of 2023 on the other hand, vehemently oppose the
prayer of the petitioners and submit that materials in the record is
sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC against the
petitioners, hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioners
ought not be allowed at this nascent stage.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that 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:-
"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 every breach of contract would not
give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach
4 Cr.M.P. Nos. 3134 of 2023 with 3150 of 2023
[ 2026:JHHC:1426]
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.
9. Further, in the case of Ankur Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another
reported in 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2023, the relevant part of para 7
of which reads as under :-
"7. When a complaint does not make out any case against the
accused, it will not be correct to say that the accused must still
undergo the agony of criminal trial. When there is an abuse of
process of law and the Courts, the High Court should not shy
away in exercising its jurisdiction. The provisions of Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. are devised to advance justice and not to
frustrate it. The allegations made in the first information report
or the complaint, if are accepted in their entirety, and are taken
at the face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused, or where the allegations
made are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient room for proceeding against the accused, the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. needs to be
exercised. In the matter on hand, a blurred allegation of threat
to life by the accused including the appellant is made in the
complaint. However, the police after investigation did not find
prima facie any case against any of the accused including the
appellant for the said offence. Judicial process is a solemn
proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an
instrument of oppression or harassment. As mentioned supra,
the records in this matter merely reveal the allegation of
cheating and criminal breach of trust on the part of the parents
of the appellant. Since the appellant is not a party to the
agreement or any transaction between the complainant and
other accused, there is no reason as to why he should face
criminal trial and that too for the offences under Sections 406,
420 IPC etc. The allegations found in the investigation records,
even if are taken at the face value, do not constitute an offence
alleged against the appellant. As the offence alleged is not
disclosed, the appellant should be saved from frivolous criminal
litigation. The admitted facts and documents relied upon by the
complaint, without weighing or sifting of evidence, do not make
out any case against the appellant & hence the criminal
proceedings instituted against him are required to be quashed.
In our view, the High Court should not have adopted rigid
approach which certainly has led to miscarriage of justice in this
case, particularly when the High Court has concluded that the
appellant is not a party to the transaction between his parents
and the complainant. The power of judicial review is
discretionary but this is a case where the High Court should
have exercised it." (Emphasis supplied)
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled
principle of law that if an accused is not a party to an agreement
5 Cr.M.P. Nos. 3134 of 2023 with 3150 of 2023
[ 2026:JHHC:1426]
or the transaction between the complainant and the other accused,
there is no reason as to why he should face criminal trial and that
too, for the offences punishable under Sections 406/ 420 of IPC.
10. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by 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,
paragraph 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 a breach of contract on
the part of the accused persons by non-refunding the amount of
advance, the same would not constitute an offence of cheating
and 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.
11. Now to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the
petitioner of CrMP no. 3134 of 2023 are not the parties to the
agreement entered into firstly, between Late Jitendra Kumar
Singh and the informant and subsequently, between Meera Singh
and the informant. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that in view of the principle of law settled in the
case of Ankur Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another (supra), there
is no justifiable reason why the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 3134 of
2023 will face the criminal trial.
12. So far as the petitioner of CrMP no. 3150 of 2023 is concerned, the
only allegation against her is that she is not honouring the
agreement dated 08.05.2016 entered into between her and the
[ 2026:JHHC:1426]
proprietorship firm of the informant and in the said agreement,
the undisputed copy of which , has been filed as Annexure 4 of
CrMP No. 3150 of 2023, there is no reference of payment of any
additional amount of Rs.10 lakhs as claimed by the informant in
the First Information Report. The said agreement has the
Arbitration Clause also as Clause No. '18'. As per clause 10 (c ),
the developer was allowed to a grace period of eight months only
in addition to forty eight months stipulated in that agreement to
conclude the project, from the date of the said agreement but the
undisputed fact remains that the informant- developer could not
complete the said work within the stipulated period of forty eight
months.
13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the dispute between the parties is purely civil dispute and a
cloak of criminal case has been given to the same by the informant
for the purpose of wrecking vengeance, hence, in the considered
opinion of this Court continuation of criminal proceeding against
the petitioners of both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions will
amount to abuse of process of law and these are fit cases, where
the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gonda P.S. case
no. 98 of 2023 including the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by
learned JMFC, XXI, Ranchi be quashed and set aside against the
petitioners of both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with
Gonda P.S. case no. 98 of 2023 including the order dated
24.06.2024 passed by learned JMFC, XXI, Ranchi is quashed and
set aside against the petitioners of both the Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions.
15. In the result, these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 19th January, 2026
Smita /AFR
Uploaded on 22.01.2026
