IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Sumita Biswas @ Sumita, D/o Late Prodyot Kumar Ghosh - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (Cr.) No. 895 of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 420, 385, 387, 506, 120B - Writ Petition for quashing criminal proceedings - Allegations of conspiracy and extortion against petitioners - Petitioners argued that no entrustment or misappropriation was established - Court found no allegations of deception or fear of injury - Entire proceedings quashed as abuse of process of law. (Paras 3, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19)
(B) Criminal Liability - Conversion of civil liability into criminal liability is impermissible - Essential ingredients of offences under IPC sections discussed. (Paras 5, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of conspiracy and extortion concerning property belonging to their deceased father, with allegations made by the informant regarding a forged Will and demands for money. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found no basis for the allegations against the petitioners, concluding that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of law. (Paras 18, 19)
Issues: The main issues included whether the essential ingredients for the alleged offences were met in the case of the petitioners. (Paras 10, 12, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without the essential elements of entrustment and deception, the offences under the IPC sections cited were not made out against the petitioners. (Paras 11, 12, 15)
Result: Writ petition allowed, and proceedings quashed.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Though notice has been validly served upon the respondent no.3, no one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.3 in-spite of repeated calls.
3. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing the entire proceeding in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 346 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B/506/385/387 of the Indian Penal Code .
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the informant in capacity of Managing Partner of Kamakhya Builders entered into a collaboration agreement that the father of the petitioners namely Prodyot Kumar Ghosh in respect of a land situated at Delhi and thereafter Prodyot Kumar Ghosh executed a power of attorney in favour of the informant. Prodyot Kumar Ghosh also made a Will in respect of the property in favour of the informant in which , inter alia the petitioners were witnesses. On 30.07.2010 Prodyot Kumar Ghosh died. On 17.03.2013 a nomination agreement was made with Vibgyor Estates Private Limited which was signed inter-alia by the petitioners as confirming parties. Prodyot Kumar Ghosh in his said Will appointed Shiv Ratan Kakrania as the executor of the Will. Probate of the Will was granted by the Calcutta High Court and the executor –Shiv Ratan Kakrania executed a deed of assent in favour of the informant. It is at least that thereafter, the petitioners along with the co-accused persons hatched up a conspiracy and with a intention to cheat the informant and his company, demanded extortion of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and as the said extortion demand was not met by the informant, the petitioners from time to time in some illegal manner are disrupting the work of the informant and are creating obstruction in the same. The petitioners have threatened that unless the extortion demand is fulfilled, they will not allow the development work upon the said land.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Mishra @ Rajesh Mishra Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another, vide order dated 08.06.2020, in Cr.M.P. No. 726 of 2019, that the Coordinate Bench in that case relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that civil liability cannot be converted into criminal liability.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the Judgment of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, vide judgment dated 17.03.2023 in Cr.M.P. No. 1744 of 2022 and submits that in a case of criminal breach of trust, pivotal ingredient is entrustment of property followed by misappropriation and submits that in this case, as there is no allegation of entrustment of any property against the petitioners, so obviously the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the Judgment of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Chandra Mohanti Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, vide judgment dated 17.03.2023, in Cr.M.P. No. 917 of 2022 and submits that if certain documents of sterling quality are brought on record, the Courts cannot turn blind eye to the same as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian in the case of B. Jagdish Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in (2009)1 SCC 681.
8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioners died intestate, without executing any Will. It is next submitted that the si
Criminal liability cannot be imposed without establishing essential elements such as entrustment and deception, as per the Indian Penal Code.
No offences under IPC 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34 against petitioner absent forgery, entrustment, or initial deception allegations despite associate role and witnessing agreement; FIR quashed under C....
Continuance of criminal proceedings based on civil disputes, without established fraudulent intent, is an abuse of process of law.
Allegations must demonstrate elements of criminal offenses; lack of evidence led to quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.
The mere non-execution of a land sale agreement does not constitute criminal misappropriation or cheating; these offences require proof of initial deception or entrustment, rendering the case a civil....
The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner due to insufficient allegations to constitute offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420.
A civil dispute arising from breach of contract does not constitute criminal offences of cheating or misappropriation under IPC without initial fraudulent intent.
Allegations of misappropriation under IPC Sections 406 and 34 cannot proceed without evidence of entrustment and dishonest intent; mere inability to repay a loan does not constitute criminal breach o....
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.