[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sk. Asiruddin vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:8487 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2282 of 2024
1. Sk. Asiruddin, aged about 54 years, son of Late Sk. Rahamatulla,
resident of village-Bara Amra, Post Siddih, Police Station Ichagarh,
District Seraikella Kharsawan.
2. Mumtaj Ansari @ Mumtaz Ansari, aged about 38 years, son of Late
Habib, resident of Village Gudri, Post Ichagarh, Police Station
Ichagarh, District Seraikella Kharsawan.
3. Sk Maksud, aged about 42 years, son of Late Sekh Rasid, resident of
Village Narayanpur, Post Seraikella, Police Station Seraikella,
District Seraikella Kharsawan.
4. Merajul Ansari @ Marajul Ansari, aged about 45 years, son of
Kamruddin Ansari, resident of village Bandih, Post Siddih, Police
Station Ichagarh, District Seraikella Kharsawan.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shekh Abdul Latif, aged about 72 years, son of late Sk. Shamsuddin,
resident of Gudri Bara Amra, P.O.-Ichagarh, P.S.-Ichagarh, Dist.-
Seraikella-Kharsawan
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate
.....
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 the BNSS, 2023 with
the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the
( 2026:JHHC:8487 )
order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with C.C. Case No. 435
of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chandil has found prima facie case for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners
purchased the property sold to them by co-accused namely Bibi
Rupu without partition of the property; in which share is claimed
by the complainant.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no
allegation against the petitioners of being entrusted with any
property and in the absence of the same, the question of dishonest
misappropriation of the property does not arise and in the
absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of
the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation
against the petitioners of deceiving anybody or inducing any
person deceived to part with any property hence, the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that there is absolutely no allegation against the
petitioners of causing hurt to anybody and in the absence of the
( 2026:JHHC:8487 )
same, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code is not made out. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the
petitioners of intentionally insulting anybody or committing
criminal intimidation and in the absence of the same, the offence
punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is
also not made out. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that as none of the offences in respect of which
prima facie case has been found by the learned A.C.J.M., Chandil is
made out against the petitioner, either in furtherance of common
intention with the co-accused persons or in criminal conspiracy
with them therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding will
amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
5. The learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer and submits that the materials in the record
are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which
prima facie case is found by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandil. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
6. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod
( 2026:JHHC:8487 )
Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014)
10 SCC 663 para-18 of which reads as under :-
"18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the
complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are
made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC.
Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the
dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the
money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or
causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the
bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment
to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised
the amounts either by themselves or for some other work,
there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention
in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of
criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that
money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be
shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same
in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere
fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the
complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust."
Emphasis supplied)
that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code, dishonest misappropriation is sine
qua non.
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of being entrusted with any
property and in the absence of the same, question of dishonest
misappropriation of any entrusted property does not arise and in
the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding
that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable
under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been
( 2026:JHHC:8487 )
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma
Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10
SCC 336, paragraph No.6 of which reads as under:-
"6. Xxxxxxxx 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)
that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused
must play deception since the beginning of the transaction
between the parties.
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of deceiving anybody or
inducing any person deceived to part with any property and in
the absence of the same even if the entire allegations made against
the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is
not made out.
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
said offence is causing hurt.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to anybody and
in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding
( 2026:JHHC:8487 )
that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
said offence is that the victim must be intentionally insulted
thereby giving provocation to commit breach of peace or commit
any offence.
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioner of internationally insulting
anybody and in the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court
has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations
made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its
entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out.
14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the same provided punishment for
criminal intimidation.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation
against the petitioners of committing criminal intimidation to
anybody or giving any threatening to anyone.
16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable
under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even
( 2026:JHHC:8487 )
with the aid of Section 120B or Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
17. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in
respect of which prima facie case has been found to be made out by
the learned Magistrate, is in fact being made out against the
petitioners, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding
against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and
this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the
order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with C.C. Case No. 435
of 2019 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
18. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandil in connection with C.C. Case No. 435 of 2019
is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
19. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 25th March, 2026
AFR/Abhiraj/-
Uploaded on 30/03/2026
