[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Awadhesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:2253)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 139 of 2026
Awadhesh Kumar, aged about 45 years, s/o Harish Chandra,
r/o & P.O.-Karadhana, P.S.-Mirzamurad, Dist.-Varanasi, Uttar
Pradesh
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
: Mr. Bhagwat Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
.....
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
FIR being Kotwali P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Section 316(2), 318(2), 3(5) of B.N.S.,
2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner with
the intention to cheat the informant since the very beginning came
to the informant along with co-accused and posed before the
(2026:JHHC:2253)
informant that he is the authorized seller (Govt. Seller) of Arihant
Drug House, Banaras. The petitioner in furtherance of common
intention with the co-accused person deceived and thereby made
the informant believe that PSI India Private Ltd. is the associate
company of a world class NGO- Population Service Industrial and
with dishonest and fraudulent intention led the informant believe
that they are the authorized person to sell medicines to the State of
Jharkhand and Bihar and requested the informant to help them in
distribution of the medicines. On being so deceived by the
fraudulent and dishonest inducement of the petitioner and the co-
accused person, the informant parted with Rs. 85,00,000/- by
paying the same to the petitioner for purchase of the medicines
which could be supplied to the State of Jharkhand and Bihar. The
petitioner and the co-accused person led the informant believe
that in case the medicines could not be sold, the unsold stock will
be taken back by the petitioner and the value of the same will be
paid back to the informant. The petitioner on receipt of
Rs.85,00,000/- supplied medicines worth Rs.84,99,547/- but later
on the informant could know that PSI India Private Ltd. is not the
authorized company either by the State of Jharkhand or State of
Bihar for supplying of drugs and hence the said medicines
supplied by the petitioner to the informant could not be sold. The
informant thereafter on 20.04.2024 sent back the entire medicines
to the petitioner on the petitioner assuring the informant that the
petitioner will return the value of the medicine within 60 days but
(2026:JHHC:2253)
even after expiry of 60 days, the value of the said medicines was
not paid back to the informant. On being so cheated by the
petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused
person and having committed criminal breach of trust, the
informant lodged Kotwali P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025 and according
to the petitioner, investigation of the case is going on and charge
sheet has not yet been submitted.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
allegations against the petitioner are all false and the dispute
between the parties is at best a commercial transaction. It is then
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has been authorized by the PSI India Private Ltd. as a
vender and has been authorized to collect payment on behalf of
PSI India Private Ltd. and it is the PSI India Private Ltd. which is
the main culprit and it has even cheated the petitioner also.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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] )"
(2026:JHHC:2253)
and submits that therein, 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 the offence
of cheating.
6. Leaned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vesa
Holdings Private Limited & Anr. vs. State of Kelera & Ors.
reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India has held that in a case where allegations are made in
regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in
the absence of culpable intention at the time of making initial
promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code can be said to have been made out. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous
petition be allowed.
7. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer and submits that this is a clear-cut case of cheating the
informant of huge amount of Rs. 85,00,000/- in a shrewd and
organized manner and such cases involving economic offences
stand in a different footing then that of criminal breach of trust
relating to sell of land or other similar cases of breach of contract.
It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that there is direct and
specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner since
(2026:JHHC:2253)
beginning of the transaction between the parties played deception
in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person
leading the informant believe that PSI India Pvt. Ltd. is the
authorized seller for government medicine in the State of
Jharkhand and Bihar though in fact, the same was not true and by
thus dishonestly and fraudulent deceiving the informant induced
to him to part with huge amount of money and though it supplied
medicine but again the petitioner deceived the informant by
making him believe that if the informant returns the medicine
then the informant will be pa back the value of the medicine
within 60 days. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that the
undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has received back the
medicines worth Rs. 84,99,547/- from the informant and it has
also remained undisputed that even after receiving back the
medicines the petitioner has not returned the value of such
medicine to the informant and this is sufficient to constitute the
offence in respect of which FIR has been registered.
8. Learned Spl. P.P. next relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
of Delhi and Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259, paragraph no.9
of which reads as under:-
"9. It is not necessary that a complainant should
verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the
ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary
that the complainant should state in so many words that the
intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent.
Splitting up of the definition into different components of the
offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the
ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint,
(2026:JHHC:2253)
is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the
offence has been laid in the complaint the court should not
hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation
stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have
not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step
which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the
information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the
basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the
offence. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court laid down the
premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The
following observations made in the aforesaid decisions are a
sound reminder: (SCC p. 379, para 103)
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect
that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding
should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;
that the court will not be justified in embarking upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
court to act according to its whim or caprice."
and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
observed that splitting up of the definition into different
components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether
all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the
complaint, is not the need at the stage of consideration of the
application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to
Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that perusal of the record reveals that there is direct
and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner in
furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person
(2026:JHHC:2253)
cheated the informant by deceiving the informant with fraudulent
and dishonest intention by making him believe that PSI India Pvt.
Ltd. is an authorized government seller of the medicines in the
State of Jharkhand and Bihar; which the petitioner at the time of
deceiving and inducing the informant was aware, to be not true.
The undisputed fact remains that by such deceiving the petitioner
succeeded in making the informant part with Rs.85,00,000/- by
paying the same to the petitioner and the undisputed fact remains
that though the petitioner supplied some medicines to the
informant but on being assured by the petitioner though the
informant has sent back the entire medicine of Rs.84,99,547/- but
the petitioner has not paid back the value of the said medicines
which was sent back by the informant to the petitioner; without
any plausible reason.
10. It is a settled principle of law that economic offences by their
very nature lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between
private parties and the High Court would be justified in declining
to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a
financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour as has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dinesh Sharma
v. Emgee Cables and Communications Ltd. and Another
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 929 paragraphs-23 of which
reads as under:
23. A profitable reference can be made to the case of Parbatbhai
Ahir v. State of Gujrat (2017) 9 SCC 641 wherein it was
observed that economic offences by their very nature lie beyond
(2026:JHHC:2253)
the domain of mere dispute between private parties and the
High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh
in the balance. Thus, it can be concluded that economic offences
by their very nature stand on a different footing than other
offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a class
apart. Economic offences affect the economy of the country as a
whole and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the
country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the confidence and
trust of the public will be shaken. (Emphasis supplied)
11. It is needless to mention that if the entire allegations made
against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety,
then prima facie the offence in respect of which the FIR has been
registered is made out against the petitioner. The investigation of
the case is going on and at this nascent stage, this Court is of the
considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal
proceeding be nipped in the bud by quashing the same.
12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 29th January, 2026
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 30/01/2026
