Allowed

Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./724/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 420 and 34 IPC initiated after a cheque bounce dispute. The court held that the dispute is essentially civil as there was no allegation of cheating intent from the inception.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016 and the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017 are quashed and set aside. Previous interim order dated 11.05.2022 is vaca

Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

Cr. M.P. No.724 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.724 of 2022

¶3

------

¶4

Mukesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Ram Prasad Sharma, R/o UG16, Urmila Tower, Bank More, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More, District Dhanbad [Jharkhand] … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Mahendar Prasad Mandal @ Mahendra Mandal, R/o Near Masjid, Saraiyahat Bazar, At- Saraiyahat, P.O. & P.S.- Saraiyahat, Dist… Dumka, Jharkhand Opposite Parties

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate

¶9

------

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶13

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 proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Dumka took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took Aadhar Card, PAN Card, two passport size photographs and two blank signed cheques of the complainant/opposite party No.2 with the promise of giving him distributorship and the complainant also transferred Rs.30,000/- to the Bank

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.724 of 2022

¶17

account of the complainant and the petitioner even attempted to withdraw money illegally by using one of those cheques but the same got dishonoured.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.30,000/- in shape of a demand draft in favour of the complainant in terms of the order passed in A.B.A. No.6489 of 2019. It is next submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner had any intention of cheating the complainant/opposite party No.2 since the beginning and at best the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. It is further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016 and including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017 be quashed and set aside.

¶19

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017 and submit that there is sufficient material in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Having heard the 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 a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur and Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 , para 10 of which reads as under :-

¶21

“10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an

¶22

¶23

Cr. M.P. No.724 of 2022

¶24

intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by nonrefunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703])” (Emphasis supplied)

¶25

that the intention to cheat since the very inception is sine qua non to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

After going through the materials available in the record, this Court do not find any material in the record to suggest that there is any allegation against the petitioner that he had any intention to cheat the complainant from the very inception. The dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016; including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017, as prayed for by the petitioner be quashed and set aside.

¶27

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016 and including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017, is quashed and set aside.

¶28

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

¶29

In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interim order granted earlier vide order dated 11.05.2022 stands vacated.

¶30

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶31

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 02^nd of August, 2023 AFR/ Animesh

¶32

Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Sharma 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

Ms Bokaro Steel Plant Represented through John Tapan Kongari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arati Tudu Vs Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway

Ashok Kumar Puri Vs Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

MD Irfan Khan Alias Irfan Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Bhagat Alias Krishna Nand Bhagat Alias Kaaru Alias Karu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand