Prem Nath Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:1458 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2982 of 2022

¶3

Prem Nath Choudhary, aged about 53 years.

¶4

Amar Choudhary @ Guddu Choudhary @ Amar Nath Choudhary, aged about 45 years.

¶5

Both sons of Late Manohar Lal Choudhary, residents of Lah Kothi, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. –Sukhdeo Nagar, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Munshi Yadav, son of Late Ganesh Yadav, resident of village – Kailpur, P.O. –Arkhango, P.S. –Rajdhanwar, District –Giridih, Jharkhand.

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate : Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash/set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 11.06.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 1571 of 2018 involving the offences punishable under Sections 420/323/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

¶16

1

¶17

Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022

¶18

( 2026:JHHC:1458 )

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case and the case is listed for evidence before charge before the trial court.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioners is that, the petitioners went to the house of the complainant and approached him to purchase one Back Loader worth Rs. 23,81,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.7,50,000/-. After that the petitioners promised to deliver the vehicle within fifteen days therefrom but the petitioners did not give the vehicle to the complainant. On 25.11.2018, when the complainant went to the petitioners, the petitioners abused him and drove him out by pushing him. There is further allegation that the petitioners apart from money have obtained twelve pieces of blank cheques signed by the complainant and also obtained the signatures of the complainant and his wife on a blank paper but did not give the vehicle. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420/323/504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Choudhary & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. , reported in 2026:JHHC:221 that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

¶22

2

¶23

Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022

¶24

( 2026:JHHC:1458 )

¶25

Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in

¶26

(2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:-

¶27

“ 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)

¶28

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

¶29

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph-24 of which reads as

¶30

under:-

¶31

“24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the

¶32

3

¶33

Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022

¶34

( 2026:JHHC:1458 )

¶35

complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] .”

¶36

Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3230 of 2022, dated 16.08.2023 whereby and where under this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , reported in (2023) SC Online SC 668 , wherein in the facts of the case where the nature of hurt suffered by the complainant in the process is neither reflected from the first F.I.R. nor in the charge-sheet, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case went on to hold that the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

¶38

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that the complainant was supposed to purchase a JCB Machine for which he paid only Rs.1,25,000/- and not Rs.7,50,000/- as claimed by him. It is next submitted that as the complainant did not pay the remaining amount for purchase of

¶39

4

¶40

Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022

¶41

( 2026:JHHC:1458 )

¶42

the JCB Machine, the petitioners repeatedly requested the complainant to take back the advance amount, however, with an ill motive to implicate the petitioners in a false criminal case for the purpose of wreaking vengeance, the complainant never turned up to receive the said Rs.1,25,000/- which is still lying in the bank account of the petitioners. It is further submitted that admittedly the complainant relied upon the delivery order dated 31.12.2016 but the same is a forged document and the same was never issued by the finance company concerned. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 has instituted a First Information Report vide Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 501 of 2021 against the complainant and his son for creating false document and committing cheating and forgery as well as committing theft of form of debit vouchers and other valuables. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶43

The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety then all the three offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Koderma is in fact being made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that

¶44

5

¶45

Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022

¶46

( 2026:JHHC:1458 )

¶47

this criminal miscellaneous petitioner being without any merit be dismissed.

¶48

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of

¶49

Bihar & Another (supra); in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties.

¶50

Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the complainant that he has paid Rs.7,50,000/- out of the 23,81,000/-. Even that amount is not accepted by the petitioners as the petitioners have categorically stated that the complainant has deposited only Rs.1,25,000/- but it is the admitted case of the complainant that he has not paid the entire amount of the vehicle in question.

¶51

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating i.e. playing deception by the accused person since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

¶52

6

¶53

Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022

¶54

( 2026:JHHC:1458 )

¶55

So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra) there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing any hurt as defined under Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code by causing any bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

¶56

So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing any intentional insult to the complainant or anyone else provoking him to cause breach of peace or any other offence. In the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

¶57

In view of the discussions made above, as this Court is of the considered view that none of the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Koderma has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, therefore, continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law.

¶58

7

¶59

Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022

¶60

( 2026:JHHC:1458 )

¶61

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 11.06.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 1571 of 2018 involving the offences punishable under Sections 420/323/504 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners.

¶62

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶63

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶64

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12^th January, 2026 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶65

Uploaded on 27/01/2026

¶66

8

¶67

Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022

Prem Nath Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Nath Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikant Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shilpi Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hari Dayal Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Chandra Ruj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand