IMPORTANT POINT
A breach of contract does not automatically constitute an offense of cheating or criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of deception or dishonest intention from the inception of the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

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 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding being P.C.R. Case No. 582 of 2022 including the order dated 13.03.2023, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara whereby and where under the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the husband of the petitioner no.1 who is also the father of the petitioner no.2 & 4 and father-in law of petitioner no.3 entered into an agreement for sale of his land, the consideration amount of which is fixed at Rs.20,00,000/- and took an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- and told the complainant to deposit certain amount in the bank accounts of the petitioner no.1 to 4. The amount was deposited by the informant i.e. in total Rs.13,00,000/- but the husband of the petitioner no.1 namely Dr. Shashikant Dubey is neither returning the money nor executing the sale deed in respect of the land for which the agreement for sale was entered into between the parties.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. The complainant was interested in purchasing the land from the husband of the petitioner no.1 along with double storied Pucca Building and the price was agreed to at Rs.40,00,000/- out of which the complainant has paid only Rs.2,00,000/- as advance. On being insisted by the husband of the petitioner no.1, the complainant paid in total Rs.20,00,000/- on several dates in the bank account of the husband of the petitioner and her son but did not pay the rest amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. On 01.03.2021, the complainant with three unknown miscreants trespassed to the house of the petitioner no.1 and threatened to implicate the petitioners in a false case for which the husband of the petitioner no.1 filed PCR Case No. 708 of 2022 in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara. The opposite party no.2 sent a legal notice through her advocate claiming payment of full consideration amount. The husband of the petitioner no.1 replied to the said notice; contending therein that the opposite party no.2 has not paid the entire amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. It is lastly submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute and no criminal case could be made out against the petitioner.

5. Relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Angad Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2023) 0 Supreme (Jhk) 1096 wherein this Court relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan & Another, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1061, para -21 to 24 of which reads as under:-

“21. The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property to the detriment of the person who entrusted it.

22. In Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar v. State of Karnataka a two-judge bench restated the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust in the following words:

“7. The basic requirement to bring home the accusations under Section 405 are the requirements to prove conjointly (1) entrustment, and (2) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention or not misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it. As the question of intention is not a matter of direct proof, certain broad tests are envisaged which wou