[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Manoj Choudhary @ Manoj Choudhury vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 29 January, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                          [2026:JHHC:2341]


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr.M.P. No.177 of 2026
                                     ------

1. Manoj Choudhary @ Manoj Choudhury, aged about 55 yrs.

S/o Ram Avtar Choudhary @ Ram Avatar Choudhury,

2. Sumita Choudhary @ Sumita Choudhury, aged about 50 yrs.

W/o Manoj Choudhary @ Manoj Choudhury, Both R/o Flat No. 4D, Empire Building in front of Hazra Nursing Home, Telephone Exchange Road, P.O. & P.S. Bankmore, Dist.- Dhanbad.

                                                              ...               Petitioners
                                              Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                          ...         Opposite Party
                                              ------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

------


                                     PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-     Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

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

the prayer to quash the FIR arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 36 of

2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,

467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

investigation of the case is going on at present and charge sheet has not

yet been submitted in this case.

[2026:JHHC:2341]

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners

cheated the informant by purchasing coke from different units of the

informant i.e. coke worth Rs.30,98,229/- for the firm of the petitioner

No.1 namely Eastern Coal Corporation and coke worth Rs.23,27,131/-

for the firm of the petitioner No.2 in the name and style of United Hard

Coke & Allied Products and intermittently paid some amount but did

not pay the entire amount.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan

Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in MANU/SC/1328/2025

and submits that therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took

note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

that in recent years, the machinery of criminal justice is being misused

by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their

oblique motives and agenda. Therefore, the courts have to be vigilant

against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and

commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must

be nipped in the bud. It is next submitted that in the facts of that case,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took into consideration, the settled

principle of law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the

complainant was required to show that the accused person had a

fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or

representation of not fulfilling the agreement for sale of the said

property. It is then submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in the facts of that case also reiterated that trite law that every act of

[2026:JHHC:2341]

breach of trust may not result in a penal offence unless there is

evidence of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation of the

property entrusted to the accused person.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sheila

Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj & Others reported in MANU/

SC/0542/2018 and submits that therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India has reiterated the settled principle of law that a charge of forgery

cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same; as

making of a document is different than causing it to be made. It is then

submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners

of making any false document and in the absence of the same, the

offence of forgery is not made out against the petitioners and in the

absence of the offence of forgery, the offence punishable under Section

467 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the

petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of Maya Rani vs. State of Jharkhand

& Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 2950 and submits that in

the facts of that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others

vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC

2311, para-12 of which reads as under:-

"12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an

[2026:JHHC:2341]

Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out."

(Emphasis supplied)

and submits that therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has categorically held that the amount paid towards consideration

cannot be said to have been entrusted with the accused persons and in

that case, it was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

that a mere breach of contract does not constitute the offence of

cheating or breach of trust.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in the case

of Maya Rani vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), this Court

relied upon the judgment of 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 No.6 of which reads as under:-

"6. Xxxxx 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)

and submits that therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has reiterated the settled principle of law that unless the accused plays

[2026:JHHC:2341]

deception since the very inception, the offence punishable under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code will not be made out.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

allegations against the petitioners are false. Admittedly, there was a

long standing business relationship. There is an inordinate delay of

more than three years from the date of the transaction in lodging the

FIR or in other words, the FIR has been lodged after a period of

limitation for recovery of money; only for the purpose of wreaking

vengeance. It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the

petitioners of committing any forgery. It is then submitted that the

dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and a cloak of

criminal case has been given to the same to harass the petitioners.

Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other

hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there is direct and

specific allegation against the petitioners of committing the offences in

respect of which the FIR has been registered and the contents of the FIR

is sufficient to constitute inter alia each of the offences in respect of

which the FIR has been registered. Hence, it is submitted that this

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be

dismissed.

11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after

carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is

[2026:JHHC:2341]

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 Vir Prakash

Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Another reported in (2007) 7 SCC

373, para-8 of which reads as under: -

"8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus:

"405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits 'criminal breach of trust'." Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made." (Emphasis supplied)

that therein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India that where the dispute between the parties is essential a civil

dispute, non-payment or under-payment of the price of the goods by

itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or

criminal breach of trust.

12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains

that the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute. There

is an inordinate delay of more than three years in lodging the FIR from

the alleged last transaction which took place between the parties. It is

[2026:JHHC:2341]

the admitted case of the informant that the petitioners intermittently

used to pay sum money but the quantum of money paid by the

petitioners has been suppressed by the informant by not specifically

mentioning as to how much, they have paid. There is no allegation

against the petitioners of dishonest misappropriation of any property.

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

that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are