For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate .....

By the Court:-

(2025:JHHC:29692)

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into an agreement on 12.07.2016 to sell 16 decimals of his land by taking an advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, again he entered into another agreement on 10.08.2016 to sell 20 decimals of his land instead of 16 decimals, has agreed to between the parties in the first agreement and took additional advance of Rs.3,00,000/- but did not execute the sale deed within the time stipulated in the said agreement dated 10.08.2016 being 20.08.2016 but thereafter also the petitioner again entered into another agreement with the complainant on 14.02.2017 according to which the sale deed was to be executed on 14.11.2019 but did not execute the sale deed nor returned the money. There is additional allegation that on 19.12.2019 the accused persons caused hurt to the husband of the complainant and criminally intimidated the complainant and her family members.

5. The complainant filed Complaint Case No. 3223 of 2019 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh which upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Ichak P.S. Case No.88 of 2021 was registered.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Anr. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, paragraph no. 10 of which reads as under:-

7. It is next submitted that since the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is not returning the advance amount in breach of the terms of agreements, the date of which has already been mentioned hereinabove hence, neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is made out.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 no. 6 of which reads as under :-

(Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has 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 and submits that in this case also, there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception on 12.07.2016 when the first transaction between the parties took place.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663, paragraph-18 of which reads as under :-

Emphasis supplied) Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022 4 (2025:JHHC:29692) and submits that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused persons. It must also be shown that the accused persons dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr. reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739, paragraph no.29 of which reads as under:-

and submits that like in that case , in this case also a cloak of criminal case is given to a civil dispute after a delay of two years.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Govind Prasad Kejriwal vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2020) 16 SCC 714, and submits that none of the ingredients of Section 323 of Indian Penal Code was held to be established in the facts of that case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of creating any false document and in the absence of the same, the offences punishable under Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022 5 (2025:JHHC:29692) Sections 467 , 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

12. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust by dishonestly inducing the complainant-informant to part with Rs.5,00,000/- but the petitioner is neither registering the land nor returning the money. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code is made out, so the FIR is maintainable. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials 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 Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311, para 12 of which reads as under:-

14. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner did not execute the sale deed in violation of the terms of the agreement within the time stipulated nor refunded the advance amount.

15. In view of the settled principle of law in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra) and in the case of Dalip Kaur & Anr. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still, the same is not sufficient to constitute either the offence punishable under Section 406 or the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

16. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 467 , 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the said offence, the common ingredient is forgery i.e. creation of a false document.

17. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of creating any false document and in the absence of any allegation of forgery none of the offence Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022 7 (2025:JHHC:29692) punishable under Sections 467 , 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is made out even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety.

18. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, they are non-cognizable offences. The essential ingredient for lodging the FIR is commission of a cognizable offence.

19. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, therefore this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of the criminal proceeding in respect of the FIR being Ichak P.S. Case No. 88 of 2021 in which investigation of the case is still going on in respect of the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 88 of 2021 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

20. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 88 of 2021 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

21. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022 8