[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jasbir Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:130 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3799 of 2019
------
Jasbir Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Anand Singh presently
working at State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Post Office, Hatia,
Police Station-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jagannath Prasad, son of Shri Ramnath Sharma, resident of near
Shurya Mandir, Dhurwa, Bus Stand, Post Office & Police Station-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate
: Ms. Rakhi Rani, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.4572 of 2018 including the
order taking cognizance dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned
( 2026:JHHC:130 )
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the
offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioner.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant deposited a cheque
in his bank account with State Bank of India and the said cheque was not
honoured; nor the cheque which he presented in his bank account was
returned. On being asked by the complainant, the petitioner who was the
AGM, State Bank of India and the Administrative Head of the Hatia
Branch of State Bank of India, whom the complainant claims to be the
branch manager, told the complainant that he does not have the cheque
and he will not return the cheque concerned to the complainant. A legal
notice was given to the petitioner to which he did not respond.
4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of
the complaint and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case as already
indicated above and passed the summoning order against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Maya Rani vs. The State of Jharkhand and
Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 2950, 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:-
( 2026:JHHC:130 )
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 it was held that every breach of contract would 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, if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same
will not amount to cheating.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case,
this court also relied upon the judgement 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.xxxx 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 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)
( 2026:JHHC:130 )
Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that
unless there is an entrustment of property, the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code will not be made out.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no
allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning
of the transaction with the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no
entrustment of any property to the petitioner as the complainant himself
claims that he deposited the cheque in his account and he has not handed
it over to the petitioner, so it is next submitted that the State Bank of India
which is a juristic person and has not been arrayed as an accused in the
complaint and in the absence of any allegation of entrustment or in the
absence of any allegation of dishonest misappropriation against the
petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal
Code is not made out against the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no
allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning
of the transaction between the parties, hence, in the absence of the same,
the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out against the petitioner; even if the entire allegations made
against him are considered to be true. Therefore, it is lastly submitted that
the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
9. Learned Spl.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 fairly submit that so far
( 2026:JHHC:130 )
as the petitioner is concerned, the offence punishable under Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code is not made out, but the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as it will be a deemed
entrustment of the cheque to the petitioner and as he has not returned the
cheque even after receipt of legal notice, therefore, the same will be
deemed to be a dishonest misappropriation of the cheque which was
entrusted. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit,
be dismissed.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner has played
deception since the beginning, certainly, the offence punishable under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the entire
allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their
entirety.
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the first essential requirement is entrustment of
any property.
12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the admitted case of the
complainant is that the complainant deposited the cheque concerned in
his bank account and it is not even the case of the complainant that he
handed over the cheque to the petitioner and in the absence of any such
allegation, at best, it may be the case of the complainant that the person
( 2026:JHHC:130 )
concerned who received the cheque on behalf of the bank or the bank
which is a body corporate might have been entrusted with the cheque.
Certainly, in the absence of any specific averment anywhere in the
complaint, there is no material in the record to suggest that there was any
entrustment to the petitioner. In the absence of any allegation of
entrustment or in the absence of any allegation of dishonest
misappropriation of any entrusted property, 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 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out
even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
13. In view of the discussions made above since neither the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence
punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even
with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, even if the entire
allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their
entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation
of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of
process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of Complaint Case No.4572 of 2018 including the order taking
cognizance dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Complaint Case No.4572 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance
( 2026:JHHC:130 )
dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, is
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 06th of January, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 08/01/2026
