Allowed

Bipin Kumar Bhagat Alias Bipin Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2023Cr.M.P./256/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr.M.P. No.256 of 2023, the High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal prosecution under Section 420 IPC initiated following a business dispute involving non-payment of goods. The court held that mere breach of contract without initial deceptive intent does not constitute cheating.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal prosecution including the Composite order dated 09.08.2018 and connection with Complaint Case No.520 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.

Bipin Kumar Bhagat Alias Bipin Bhagat Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

Cr. M.P. No.256 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.256 of 2023

¶3

------

¶4

Bipin Kumar Bhagat @ Bipin Bhagat, Son of- Surendra Bhagat, Aged about 48 years, Resident of 360, Subhash Nagar, Hur Huru Road, P.S.- Sadar, Hazaribagh, P.O. and District- Hazaribagh

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, S/o Late Awadhesh Prasad Agarwal, Proprietor of Agarwal Agency, R/o Punjabi Mohalla, P.O.- Giridih, …

¶9

P.S.- Giridih (Town), District- Giridih Opposite Parties

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. None, Advocate ------

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶14

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.

¶15

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution including the Composite order dated 09.08.2018 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih whereby and where under cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and process has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.520 of 2018 (T.R. No.1501 of 2018) now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate1^st Class, Giridih.

¶16

¶17

Cr. M.P. No.256 of 2023

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is that there was business transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. On 13.04.2017, he took goods worth Rs.69,161/- on credit and on 18.06.2017 he again took goods worth Rs.35,900/- on credit but did not make payment of the same.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has suppressed the material facts regarding reply of the notice sent by the petitioner through his counsel. It is next submitted that the petitioner has returned the medicines worth Rs.99,220/- and the said amount is to be adjusted. It is further submitted that this criminal case has been instituted maliciously to settle the business dispute. It is further submitted that the filing of the complaint without approaching the police has been made with a malafide intention. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of having any intention to deceive the complainant since the beginning of the transaction between the parties; on the other hand there is admitted long-standing business relationship between the parties. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal prosecution including Composite order dated 09.08.2018 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.520 of 2018 (T.R. No.1501 of 2018) now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih, be quashed and set aside.

¶20

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the Composite order dated 09.08.2018 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.520 of 2018 (T.R. No.1501 of 2018) now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih and submits that there is sufficient material in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the

¶21

¶22

Cr. M.P. No.256 of 2023

¶23

petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶24

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 well settled law 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; as has been 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 :-

¶25

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)

¶26

Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had any intention to deceive the complainant since the very inception. There is admitted longstanding business relationship between the complainant and the petitioner and the alleged amount became due over a period of time. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of the law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal prosecution including the Composite order dated 09.08.2018 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.520 of 2018 (T.R. No.1501 of 2018) now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih; be quashed and set aside.

¶27

¶28

Cr. M.P. No.256 of 2023

¶29

Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution including Composite order dated 09.08.2018 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.520 of 2018 (T.R. No.1501 of 2018) now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih, as prayed for by the petitioner is quashed and set aside.

¶30

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶32

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11^th of Septemeber, 2023 AFR/ Animesh

¶33

Bipin Kumar Bhagat Alias Bipin Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Kumar Bhagat Alias Bipin Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iyamin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shamsher Khan Alias Shamsher Hazam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uttam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harihar Prasad Sahu Alias Hari Saw Alias Harihar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand