[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kallu @ Kallu Miyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:7276 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3459 of 2025
------
Kallu @ Kallu Miyan, aged about 45 years, S/o Nijam Miyan, R/o
At-Ketaki, PO-Ketaki, PS-Dev, District-Aurangabad, Bihar.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Vijay Yadav, S/o Jawahir Yadav, R/o At-Ramgarh, PO & PS-
Chattarpur, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Singh, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : None
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party
no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of
repeated calls.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 19.08.2025 including the
entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chhattarpur P.S. Case
No.229 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1555 of 2025 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau whereby and where under
the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau has taken cognizance of
( 2026:JHHC:7276 )
the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 351(3) & 318(4) of the BNS,
2023 against the petitioner and to quash the charge sheet passed in the
said case and consequential reliefs.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the brother of the
petitioner namely Mumtaj @ Lallu, took Rs.20,60,050/- from the informant
for investment in his fish business by promising of alluring returns to the
informant, but after taking the said money, closed his fish business and
did not pay back the said amount taken by him from the informant. The
only allegation against the petitioner is that upon the informant sending
notice through his Advocate, the petitioner threatened the informant to
kill him and told to forget the money given by him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs.
Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) Supreme (SC) 1201, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law
that to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must have the
intention to cheat from the very inception and if the dispute between the
parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract
on the part of the accused person by non-refunding the amount of
advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating and
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 and in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its
( 2026:JHHC:7276 )
own judgement in the case of Ajay Mitra vs. State of M.P. reported in
(2003) 3 SCC 11.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the main
allegation is against the brother of the petitioner and the petitioner has
been roped in, in this case only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. It
is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of ever
coming face to face with the informant and admittedly, the petitioner lives
in the District of Aurangabad and there is no allegation against him that
he ever came to District of Palamau, where the occurrence took place. It is
next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the
petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still none of the
offences in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted and
cognizance of the offences has been taken is made out against the
petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
Cr.M.P., be allowed.
7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the
petitioner of being instrumental in criminal intimidation of the informant
and during the investigation of the case, the allegation against the
petitioner was found to be true and besides the criminal intimidation, the
offence of cheating and the criminal breach of trust was also proved
against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being
without any merit, be dismissed.
( 2026:JHHC:7276 )
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 there is absolutely no allegation against the
petitioner of cheating or committing criminal breach of trust. There is no
allegation against the petitioner of inducing the informant or anyone else
to part with any property or deceiving the informant or anyone else.
Hence, 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 318(4) of the BNS, 2023
is not made out.
9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the BNS,
2023 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here the essential ingredients
to constitute the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the BNS, 2023
are as follows:-
(i)There must be an entrustment; and
(ii) there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's
own use or use in violation of a legal direction or of legal
contract.
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation of entrustment of any property against the petitioner nor there
is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property.
Hence, 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 316(2) of the BNS, 2023
is not made out.
( 2026:JHHC:7276 )
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 351(3) of the BNS,
2023 is concerned, the undisputed facts remains that the petitioner never
came face to face with the informant and the petitioner is a resident of
Aurangabad whereas the alleged occurrence took place in the District of
Palamau. Keeping in view the dispute of the informant with the brother
of the petitioner, in which the petitioner is no way concerned, there is no
rhyme or reason why the petitioner will threaten the informant nor it has
come on record as to in what manner the petitioner threatened the
informant at Palamau from Aurangabad.
12. It is apparent that the allegation of criminal intimidation made only
to rope in the petitioner in a criminal case for the purpose of wreaking
vengeance.
13. In view of the discussions made above, 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 order dated 19.08.2025 including the entire criminal proceeding
in connection with Chhattarpur P.S. Case No.229 of 2024 corresponding to
G.R. Case No.1555 of 2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Palamau whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Palamau has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 351(3) & 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioner and
the charge sheet submitted in the said case and the entire criminal
proceeding, be quashed and set aside in respect of the petitioner.
( 2026:JHHC:7276 )
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 19.08.2025 in connection with Chhattarpur P.S. Case No.229 of 2024
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1555 of 2025 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau whereby and where under the learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 351(3) & 318(4) of the BNS,
2023 against the petitioner and the charge sheet submitted in the said case
is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 17th of March, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 20/03/2026
