Allowed

Dilip Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Sept 2025Cr.M.P./8/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash FIR over failed land sale agreements with advance payments. The Court held no cheating, criminal breach of trust, or forgery was made out; Sections 323 and 506 being non-cognizable, no cognizable offence existed. The criminal proceeding including the FIR was quashed qua the petitioner and the petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding including Ichak P.S. Case No. 88 of 2021 FIR quashed qua the petitioner.

Dilip Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

(2025:JHHC:29692)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 08 of 2022

¶3

Dilip Singh, aged about 47 years, son of late Saryu Prasad Singh, r/o Josidih Kunj, P.O.-Ratanpur, P.S.-Ichak, Dist.-Hazaribagh

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Indu Devi, wife of Yogendra Vishwakarma, resident of VillageDoyi, P.O.+P.S.-Ichak, Dist.-Hazaribagh

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

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

¶12

By the Court:-

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 88 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the petitioner is concerned, investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted against the petitioner.

¶16

Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022

¶17

¶18

(2025:JHHC:29692)

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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:-

¶22

“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 intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of

¶23

Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022

¶24

¶25

(2025:JHHC:29692)

¶26

contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding 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)

¶27

and submits that it has been held in that case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute resulting through alleged breach of contract on the part of the accused persons by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute the offence of cheating and similarl, is the legal position in respect of the offence of criminal breach of trust.

¶28

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.

¶29

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 :-

¶30

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

¶31

Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022

¶32

¶33

(2025:JHHC:29692)

¶34

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)

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

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 :-

¶38

“18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” Emphasis supplied)

¶39

Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022

¶40

¶41

(2025:JHHC:29692)

¶42

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:-

¶43

“29. In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.”

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022

¶47

¶48

(2025:JHHC:29692)

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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:-

¶52

“12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to

¶53

Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022

¶54

¶55

(2025:JHHC:29692)

¶56

register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶57

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that payment of advance amount does not amount to entrustment as mentioned in Section 405 of Indian Penal Code.

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022

¶63

¶64

(2025:JHHC:29692)

¶65

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.

¶66

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.

¶67

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.

¶68

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.

¶69

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶70

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶71

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24^th September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶72

Cr.M.P. No.08 of 2022

¶73

Dilip Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Singh 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

Shiv Sankar Prasad Gupta Alias Sankar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indrajeet Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Malti Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sajid Ali Alias Babu Bhai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sidharth Gupta Alias Siddharth Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Jaiswal Alias Vikash Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand