IMPORTANT POINT
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there is an intention to deceive from the inception of the agreement; allegations of insult and intimidation must meet specific legal thresholds to constitute offences under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.3100 of 2021 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 504, 506, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and taken cognizance of the said offences.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 constructed a simplex (a single storied house) for the informant. As per the agreement, the petitioner no.1 was to make a construction of 1300 sq. feet but he constructed simplex of 1076 sq. feet only and also did not make available the facilities which he was supposed to provide under the agreement. The informant has paid Rs.16,25,000/-to the petitioner no.1. The informant tried to talk to the petitioner no.1 on several occasions in this respect but he did not listen. The informant thereafter, sent legal notice and also instituted a case. It is specifically alleged that on 20.02.2020 at 12:00 noon, the petitioner no.1 along with the petitioner no.2 who is the driver of the petitioner no.1 came to the locality of the informant. When the informant tried to talk to them, they abused the informant with obscene language and raised their hands upon the informant. The petitioner no.1 alleged that the husband of the informant is conspiring to kidnap the children of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.2 also abused the informant with obscene language. After this occurrence, the petitioner no.1 and his antisocial elements are following the informant and intimidating the movement of the informant to the petitioner no.1. With the apprehension that the petitioner no.1 can cause any harm to the family of the informant, the informant lodged the FIR.

4. After investigation of the case, police found the allegations for the offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code to be true against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17.12.2021 in the said Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.3100 of 2021, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 504, 506, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gunjan Koushik vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 2050 of 2022 dated 23.11.2023 wherein, in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, paragraph no.10 of which reads as under:-

“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 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] )”

and submits that like that case, in this case also, the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute resulting from breach of contract by making construction of an area less than what was to be constructed by the petitioner no.1.

6. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case also, this Court relied upon the judgment of Ho