[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:1986)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1940 of 2023
Sunil Kumar Sharma, aged about 27 years, son of Bablu Lal Sharma,
resident of Nanwada Gadrwada, P.O. 7 P.S.-Dausa, Dist.-Dausa,
(Rajasthan), PIN-303325
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor of Sri Balajee Traders, son of late
Ram Awtar Agarwal, aged about 47 years, resident of D-Costa
Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East
Singhbhum, (Jharkhand), PIN-831006
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
: Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate
: Mr. Raj, 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 entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint
Case No. 1666 of 2021 whereby and where under, the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of
(2026:JHHC:1986)
the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioner.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant
placed an order for supply of face mask worth Rs.11,02,500/- but
the petitioner supplied the same showing value of the product to
be Rs. 81,000/- only that too not in the name of the complainant.
On being approached by the complainant, the petitioner intimated
the complainant that even though the goods are not in the name
of the complainant but the same was dispatched to the
complainant and the transporter also intimated the complainant
that the same article is to be handed over to the complainant but
the complainant did not receive the same and lodged a written
report with the Jusalai police station basing upon which Jugsalai
P.S. Case No. 91 of 2020 was registered and police after
completion of the investigation submitted final report upon
finding that the allegations against the petitioner to be not true
and recommended initiation of the proceeding against the
complainant for having committed the offence punishable under
Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The informant thereafter filed Complaint-cum-Protest Case No.
1666 of 2021 and basing upon the complaint-cum-protest petition,
statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the
statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the offence
(2026:JHHC:1986)
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and
passed a summoning order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anukul Singh
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2060 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, relied upon
its own judgment in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh @
Shailesh R. Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025
INSC 869, and wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
disapproved the practice of using criminal proceedings as a
substitute for civil remedies; by observing that money recovery
cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution, where the
dispute is essentially civil in nature and submits that in this case
also as the dispute is essentially a civil dispute hence, filing of the
criminal case is an abuse of process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Rajan Choudhary vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Anr. and allied cases reported in 2025:JHHC:23712
and submits that this Court in that case 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
(2026:JHHC:1986)
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 does not give
rise to the 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 cannot amount to cheating.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Ramdhan Mahto & Ors. vs. The State
of Jharkhand reported in 2025:JHHC:30990 and submits that in
that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur and 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] )"
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the
settled principle of law that if the dispute between the parties was
(2026:JHHC:1986)
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 the offence of cheating.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2023:JHHC:11106 and submits that
in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajib Ranjan & Ors. vs. R.
Vijaykumar reported in 2014 4 JLJR (SC) 562 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the facts of the case, where an attempt
was made by the complainant to covert a case of civil nature into
criminal prosecution; justified the order of the High Court by
which the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is
next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
allegations against the petitioner are all false which has even been
found by the police after investigation of the case. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is a reputed businessman and even if the entire
allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true
in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
9. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and
(2026:JHHC:1986)
submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the
petitioner of cheating, as the petitioner deceived the complainant
to part with huge amount of money in the garb of supplying face
mask which he did not supply hence, the materials in the record is
sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, submitted that this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. (supra) that in order to constitute the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the
accused must have played deception since the inception of the
transaction between the parties.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the
complainant that the complainant gave certain money and the
petitioner supplied certain goods albeit not in the name of the
complainant but admittedly, the transporter was ready to hand
over the articles supplied by the petitioner to the complainant but
the complainant did not receive the same.
12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of
having played deception since the very inception and in the
absence of this essential ingredient to constitute the offence
(2026:JHHC:1986)
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court
is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made
against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still
the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
is not made out against the petitioner, therefore, continuation of
the criminal proceeding against the petitioner 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
06.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1666 of 2021
be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint
Case No. 1666 of 2021 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 27th January, 2026
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 28/01/2026
