The court affirmed that clear allegations of cheating and misappropriation justify the continuation of criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 406 and 420, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal intent.

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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1447 of 2021 in which after investigation of the case police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners of having committed the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and also the order taking cognizance dated 04.08.2021 passed in the said Sadar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1447 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh took cognizance inter-alia against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners dishonesty induced and by way of cheating made the informant invest equal amount of money for purchasing land in the name of the petitioners by promising the informant to transfer the respective share of the informant in the property to be purchased. There is further allegation that the petitioners thus having dominion over the investment made by the informant have dishonestly misappropriated the same to their own use; by not transferring the land purchased with the money of the informant to the informant and selling the land to a third person who is co- accused namely Masomat Bishni. On the basis of the allegation made against the petitioners, police after investigation found the allegation against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and consequent upon submission of charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offences. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though charges have also been framed against the petitioners but the order framing charge has not been challenged by the petitioners.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 196, in para -6 of the which Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has referred to its own Judgment in the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 wherein it was observed that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised sparingly and complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have criminal texture but if a case is essentially of civil nature, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceeding and as in the facts of that case it was found that the dispute between the parties was essentially of civil nature further as the parties settled their dispute later, hence in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R. and submits that in this case also, the dispute between the parties is essentially of civil nature.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., in Cr.M.P. No. 1308 of 2022, dated 28.11.2023 wherein in the facts of that case where after filing the civil case for a period of more than two decades, a complaint was filed; as the complainant remained unsuccessful in the civil dispute and in that case as there was no allegation of the accused having any intention of deceiving the complainant or his mother at the time of entering into the agreement nor there was any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of the property, this Court quashed the criminal proceeding and submits that i