Jitendra Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

( 2026:JHHC:4071)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No. 2474 of 2023

Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Aged about- 66 years, S/O- Late Kailash Mishra, R/O-Lohar Kulhi, P.O.+ P. S. Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Rajesh Kumar Choubey @ Kale, S/O- Devendra Nath Choubey, R/O Police Line, Dompara Road, P.O + P.S- Dhanbad, DistrictDhanbad

¶9

... Opposite Parties

¶10

--------For the Petitioner: Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate For the State: Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2: Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Randhir Kr. Vishwakarma, Advocate ---------

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶14

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.04.2023, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in the Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision; which was directed against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 1692 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

¶15

1

¶16

( 2026:JHHC:4071)

¶17

The brief facts of the case is that theallegation against the opposite party no.2 herein is that he gave a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner and also took possession of original sale deed of the petitioner. The opposite party no.2 also compelled the petitioner to sign on blank non- judicial stamp paper in which loan amount was mentioned as Rs.3,90,000/-. Though the petitioner returned Rs.3,00,000/- but the opposite party no.2 demanded Rs.90,000/- more and threatened him to implicate in false cases. The case of the complainant is that on 05.03.2018 he along with his son went to the house of the accused where the accused took original sale deed (which was in the name of his wife) and compelled the petitioner to sign on non judicial stamp paper forcibly and the opposite party no.2 accused persons snatched the original document of the petitioner but no complaint or FIR has been lodged immediately thereafter. The learned Judicial Magistrate also considered that it is not believable that the witnesses would also signon blank non judicial stamp paper. The learned Magistrate also found that there is no allegation of cheating or inducement and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complaint petitioner filed a criminal revision in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad considered that there is no allegation that the O.P. No.2 at the

¶18

Cr. M.P. No. 2474 of 2023

¶19

2

¶20

( 2026:JHHC:4071) very inception had any intention to deceive the complainantpetitioner and in the absence of that, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It was also observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad that there is nothing in the complaint to show that any property was entrusted upon the opposite party no.2 which he dishonestly converted to his own use and in the absence of that the offence punishable under Section 406 is not made out and there was no material to support commission of the offences punishable under Section 323, 341 or 384 of the Indian Penal Code and went on to dismiss the criminal revision.

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the material in the record in their proper perspective and that the offence of cheating is made out against the O.P.No.2 hence it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P, be allowed.

¶22

Learned Spl. P.P and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer and submit that in its statement under solemn affirmation the petitioner-complainant has not stated anything in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Cr. M.P. No. 2474 of 2023

¶24

3

¶25

( 2026:JHHC:4071)

¶26

It is next submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the O.P. No.2 of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties nor there is any allegation of any entrustment of property by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2 or any dishonest intention to misappropriate the property of the petitioner by the opposite party no.2 and in the absence of the same neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, hence it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed.

¶27

Having heard the submission made in the Bar and after going through the material in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gapalika vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph 6 of which reads as under:

¶28

"6. … 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

¶29

Cr. M.P. No. 2474 of 2023

¶30

4

¶31

( 2026:JHHC:4071) behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC." (Emphasis supplied)

¶32

that in order to constitute the offence of cheating the accused must play deception since the very beginning of the transaction between the parties but if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

¶33

Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the O.P. No.2 that the O.P. No.2 played deception since the very beginning of the transaction between the parties. In the absence of the same this Court do not find any illegality in both the orders of the learned Courts below and even if the entire allegation made against the O.P. No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Similarly, in the absence of any allegation of entrustment of any money or property to the O.P. No.2 or dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, both the courts below have rightly held that offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is also not made out.

¶34

In view of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition in

¶35

Cr. M.P. No. 2474 of 2023

¶36

5

¶37

( 2026:JHHC:4071)

¶38

exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶39

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being

¶40

without any merit, is dismissed.