[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Harish Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:8702)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.24 of 2024
------
1. Harish Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of late Chhavi Kumar
Verma;
2. Asha Devi, aged about 59 years, wife of late Chhavi Ram;
Both are resident of H. No.62, Bajrang Tekri, D.B. Road,
Bagbera, P.O.- Tata Nagar, P.S.- Bagbera, Town- Jamshedpur,
District- East Singhbhum ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jitendra Kumar Sinha, son of Late Dhirendra Bihari Sinha, resident
of 182, LIG Raw House, Adityapur, P.O.- Adityapur, P.S.- R.I.T.,
District- Seraikella Kharsawan ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sumeet Anand, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kr. Paswan, 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,
1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the
order taking cognizance dated 07.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan in connection with Complaint Case
(2026:JHHC:8702)
No.596 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found
prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the complainant was sold a
land inter alia in the presence of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1
disclosed that the said land stands recorded in the name of his father and it was
agreed to between the parties that the consideration amount of the said land
would be Rs.2,00,000/-. Then both the petitioners along with the co-accused
persons, came to the house of the complainant and showed him the land. The
complainant purchased the land on 16.05.2012 on paying Rs.2,00,000/- but after
eight years in 2020, he came to know that the petitioners have sold the land
other than the one showed to the complainant. Two of the accused did not
allow the demarcation of the land by the Government Amin and threatened the
complainant. The complainant earlier lodged R.I.T. P.S. Case No.51 of 2021
against the seller of the land namely Chhavi Ram Verma-who is the father of
the petitioner no.1 and husband of the petitioner no.2 but after death of the said
Chhavi Ram Verma, Final Report was submitted in that case. The land which
has been sold to the complainant, is under the possession of Shekh Dilawar and
Tawarak Ali. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-
Kharsawan on the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and the documents available in the record, 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 Sarabjit Kaur vs. The State of
Punjab & Another reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 517 and submits that in
(2026:JHHC:8702)
paragraph-13 thereof, it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the
beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up
promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. It is next submitted
that the present case is at best a case of breach of contract, hence, initiation of
the criminal proceeding in the absence of any allegation of fraudulent or
dishonest intention of the petitioners, is not sustainable in law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of 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-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)
and submits that therein 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 petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerela
& Others reported in 2001 5 Supreme 131 and submits that therein the Hon'ble
(2026:JHHC:8702)
Supreme Court of India has held that there can be no second F.I.R. and
consequently there can be no fresh investigation. It is further submitted that
admittedly the complainant has filed R.I.T. P.S. Case No.51 of 2021 and merely
because Final Report in the said case was submitted by police, a fresh
complaint for the self-same allegation, is not maintainable.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants next relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra
Singh Rathore reported in 2025 INSC 248 and submits that therein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that two
F.I.Rs with regard to same offence, is not maintainable. It is further submitted
that the allegation against the petitioners is false. The main allegation is against
the father of the petitioner No.1 who is admittedly the seller of the land to the
complainant; that too ten years prior to filing of the complainant. It is next
submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are vague and vexatious.
It is also submitted that so far as the offences punishable under Section 504/506
of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same are specifically against the co-
accused persons namely Shekh Dilawar and Tawarak Ali. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
8. 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
petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the allegations made
against the petitioners, if are considered to be true in their entirety, then all the
offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned
Magistrate, is in fact, made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it is
submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
(2026:JHHC:8702)
9. 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 it is the admitted fact that the land in question was sold to the
complainant by the father of the petitioner No.1 who is the husband of the
petitioner No.2 ten years prior to institution of the complaint. Admittedly, for
the selfsame occurrence and alleged offences, the complainant lodged R.I.T.
P.S. Case No.51 of 2021 against the father of the petitioner No.1 who is also the
husband of the petitioner No.2 and the said case ended in Final Report
submitted by the police. In the said case, the petitioners were not the accused
persons. There is no allegation against the petitioners of doing any overt act
after registration of the sale-deed by the father of the petitioner No.1 namely
Chhavi Ram Verma in favour of the complainant. There is no allegation against
the petitioners of having played any deception since the beginning of the
transaction between the parties rather the transaction between the parties was
between the said Chhavi Ram Verma and the complainant.
10. 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
their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code is not made out against the petitioners.
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence is that
there must be entrustment and there must be misappropriation or conversion
to one's own use or use in violation of a legal direction or obtaining legal
possession; as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
(2026:JHHC:8702)
of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3
SCC 641.
12. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation
against the petitioners of entrustment of any property 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 petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence
punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against
the petitioners.
13. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 504/506 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the specific allegation in respect of the same is against
the co-accused namely Shekh Dilawar and Tawarak Ali for the occurrences
which took place much after 2012. There is no allegation against the petitioners
of being involved in the offences punishable under Section 504 or 506 of the
Indian Penal Code.
14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the
continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to
abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal
proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 07.06.2023 passed by
the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan in
connection with Complaint Case No.596 of 2022 be quashed and set aside
against the petitioners named above.
15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking
cognizance dated 07.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial
(2026:JHHC:8702)
Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan in connection with Complaint Case No.596
of 2022 is quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above.
16. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 26th of March, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 30/03/2026
