NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Cr.M.P. No.2384 of 2022 dismissing the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter ‘ CrPC ’ for short) preferred by the accused-appellant and thereby refusing to quash the Signature Not Verified proceedings arising out of the Complaint Case No.619 of 2021 and Digitally signed by BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2025.09.24 19:10:51 IST Reason: Page 1 of 17 FIR No.18 of 2021 dated 08.02.2021 registered at PS Hindpiri that was filed by Md. Mustafa, the complainant/respondent No.2.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is the owner of the property situated at Khata No.186, MS Plot No.1322, Sub Plot No.1322/38-A and that he is also the power of attorney holder for the property adjacent to the above-mentioned plot situated at Sub-Plot No.1322/39-A-1.

4. On 16.02.2013, the appellant entered into an agreement for sale of the aforesaid properties with the complainant/respondent No.2 for a total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. Out of the said consideration, the petitioner received an advance payment of Rs.20,00,000/- on the date of agreement for sale.

5. Thereafter, on 29.01.2021, after nearly eight years from the date of the agreement for sale, aggrieved by the non-transfer of the said properties, a complaint was filed being Complaint Case No.619 of 2021 by the complainant/respondent No.2 against the appellant alleging offences under Sections 406 , 420 , and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “ IPC ” for short.). The said complaint culminated into registration of the FIR No.18 of 2021 dated Page 2 of 17 08.02.2021 at Police Station Hindpiri against the appellant. The allegations contained in the said complaint and F.I.R. can be crystallized as hereunder:

i. In January 2013, one Atik Alam assured the complainant/respondent No.2 that the property owned by the appellant situated at Khata No.186, MS Plot No.1322, Sub Plot No.1322/38-A was available for sale. Thereafter, upon meeting the appellant, the complainant/respondent No.2 was assured that all the documents and titles to the said property were in order and correct.

ii. The complainant/respondent No.2 was also informed that the land adjacent to the property owned by the appellant, situated at M.S. Plot No.1322, Sub Plot No.1322/39-A-1, was owned by six different individuals, all of whom had created a power of attorney in favour of the appellant and therefore authorized him to sell the said adjacent land as well.

iii. Pursuant to the said representations, the complainant/ respondent No.2 agreed to buy the said properties for a consideration of Rs.43,00,000/- vide agreement for sale dated Page 3 of 17 16.02.2013. In furtherance to the said agreement, a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was given to the appellant and it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount shall be paid by the complainant/respondent No.2 to the appellant at the time of the registration of the said document.

iv. After the execution of the said agreement for sale, the appellant failed to convey title of the said lands to the complainant/ respondent No.2 nor did he return the money deposited with him by the complainant/respondent No.2.

6. Apprehending arrest on the aforesaid complaint and F.I.R., the appellant herein preferred Anticipatory Bail Petition No.681 of 2021 before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, Jharkhand on 22.03.2021.

7. Meanwhile, the parties were referred to the Mediation Centre, Ranchi wherein they arrived at a mutually satisfactory disposition according to which the appellant agreed to return a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent No.2 in five instalments as a full and final settlement of all the claims between the parties.

Page 4 of 17

8. The Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, vide order dated 23.12.2021, allowed the Anticipatory Bail Application No.681 of 2021.

9. In pursuance to the aforesaid order of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, the appellant appeared before the said Court on 19.01.2022 to surrender and sought permission to furnish bail bond. The appellant, in compliance with the anticipatory bail conditions imposed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, also furnished a demand draft bearing no. 115484 dated 13.01.2022 of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant/respondent No.2 as a payment of the first instalment.

10. Subsequently, on the failure of the appellant to abide by the condition of timely payment of instalments fixed by the Judicial Commissioner vide its order dated 23.12.2021 while granting anticipatory bail, the complainant/respondent No.2 preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.39 of 2022 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.681 of 2021 seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant. The said application was allowed and Page 5 of 17 consequently vide order dated 15.06.2022, the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant was cancelled.

11. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2022 of the Court cancelling the Anticipatory Bail, the appellant preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2384 of 2022 under Section 482 CrPC before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi praying for the relief of quashing of F.I.R. No.18 of 2021; Criminal Complaint Case No.619 of 2021; and order dated 15.06.2022 vide which the anticipatory bail of the appellant was cancelled.

12. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2384 of 2022 preferred by the appellant was partly allowed by the Jharkhand High Court vide impugned order dated 19.01.2023 whereby the High Court although refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant but nevertheless allowed him the liberty to approach the High Court to prefer a fresh anticipatory bail application.

13. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

Page 6 of 17

14. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as respondent- complainant. We have perused the material on record.

15. We have given our thorough consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and the material on record.

16. The contents of the complaint as well as the FIR would have to be read in light of the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC and the law settled by this Court through various judicial dicta. On perusal of the complaint dated 29.01.2021, it is noted that the complainant/respondent No.2 has filed the said complaint invoking Sections 406 , 420 and 120B IPC. For ease of reference, the aforesaid Sections are extracted as under:

xxx 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”

17. In Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal , (2007) 12 SCC 1 (“Inder Mohan Goswami”), while dealing with Section 420 IPC, this Court observed thus:

Mere allegations by the complainant/respondent No.2 that the appellant failed to execute the agreement for sale and failed to refund the money paid by the complainant/respondent No.2 does not satisfy the test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a valuable security as enshrined under Section 420 IPC.

20. On perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint, in light of the ingredients of Section 406 IPC, read in the context of Section 405 IPC, do not find that any offence of criminal breach of trust has been made out. It is trite law that every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence unless there is evidence of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to him. In the case of criminal breach of trust, if a person Page 10 of 17 comes into possession of the property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to its own use against the terms of contract, then the question whether such retention is with dishonest intention or not and whether such retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the complainant/respondent No.2 has failed to establish the ingredients essential to constitute an offence under Section 406 IPC. The complainant/respondent No.2 has failed to place any material on record to show us as to how he had entrusted property to the appellant. Furthermore, the complaint also omits to aver as to how the property, so entrusted to the appellant, was dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use, thereby committing a breach of trust.

21. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that if it is the case of the complainant/respondent No.2 that the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 , punishable under Page 11 of 17 Section 420 IPC. This Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriates the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously. Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct. The said offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.

22. At this point, we must hasten to add that the complaint was filed after a delay of nearly eight years. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has failed to impress the Court about the reason for the delay and hence this fact further raises a suspicion about the bona fides of the complainant/respondent Page 12 of 17 No.2. The delay in lodging of the complaint and FIR, coupled with the vague allegations do not inspire any confidence in the Court to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the appellant. Further, the complainant/respondent No.2 had an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit claiming damages for the alleged violation of his contractual rights which has not been availed but a route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas. The appellant therefore, in our view, could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant are unsustainable.

23. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami, it was held by this Court that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the Page 13 of 17 reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would cause undue harassment to him because as observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 IPC is made out.

24. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed:

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

…………………………………..J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) …………………………………..J. (R. MAHADEVAN) NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 24, 2025.

Page 17 of 17