[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Satyendra Nath Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                          (2026:JHHC:183)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No.1081 of 2025
                                          ------

Satyendra Nath Tiwari, aged about 65 years, son of Late Narendra Nath Tiwari, resident of 211, Dev Kunj, Misir Gonda, Kanke Road, PO & PS - Gonda, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Anita Shukla, aged about 57 years, wife of Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, resident of 3E, Kailash Apartment, South Office Para, Doranda, PO & PS - Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate

------

                                        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 Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal

proceeding as against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case

No.269 of 2024 including the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under

(2026:JHHC:183)

the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence

punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being

the brother of the complainant, obtained several signatures on several

documents and blank papers with a promise to give her share after

documentation but did not give her share. The learned Magistrate, on

the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn

affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses found prima facie

case as already indicated above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of

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

Lakshmikantha Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another

reported in 2025 INSC 1096 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India has mentioned the ingredients of offence of cheating in

paragraph-12 which reads as under:-

"12. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows:

1) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby

2)(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person:

(i) to deliver any property to any person, or

(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or

(b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property."

(2026:JHHC:183)

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment

of this Court in the case of Ashok Agrawal & Others vs. The State of

Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.617 of 2021 dated

13.06.2023 and submits that in that case, 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-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 in order to constitute the offence of

cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the

transaction between the parties and if the intention to cheat has

developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that it is the

admitted case of the complainant that the petitioner happens to be her

own brother and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case

with oblique motive only for wrecking vengeance. It is further

submitted that after the death of the father of the petitioner and the

opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 filed Partition Suit No.15

(2026:JHHC:183)

of 2006 against the petitioner as well as his mother and the said suit was

dismissed on 28.08.2012. It is also submitted that there is no allegation

against the petitioner of delivery of any property to the petitioner or

anyone for retention of any property by the petitioner or anyone.

Hence, in the absence of this essential ingredient as well as in the

absence of any allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner

played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the

parties, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal

Code is not made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted

that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

7. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned

counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently

oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and

submit that the petitioner has deceived the complainant and by such

deception, has obtained her signature on blank papers and some

documents; which the complainant has done in good faith considering

her relationship with the petitioner, as the petitioner is her own brother.

Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal

Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this

Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

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

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

pertinent to mention here that to constitute the offence punishable

(2026:JHHC:183)

under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, two essential ingredients

are required which are:-

(i) deceit i.e., to say dishonest or fraudulent representation and

(ii) inducing the person deceived to deliver any property to any

person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or to do

or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so

deceived.

9. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the only allegation against

the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained the signature of the

complainant on some documents and on some blank papers. There is no

allegation against the petitioner that the complainant delivered any

property or consented that any person shall retain any property. In the

absence of this essential ingredient and in the absence of any allegation

against the petitioner that the petitioner played deception since the

beginning of the transaction between the parties; which is the other

essential ingredient to constitute the offence of cheating, this Court is of

the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the

petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence

punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out