IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Sanjay Kumar Sharda @ Sanjay Kumar Sarda - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.2355 of 2024
Decided on : 07-05-2025
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to set aside the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.3747 of 2024 including the order dated 18.05.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class- XXIII, Ranchi has found sufficient material to proceed with the case inter alia against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the father of the complainant purchased a property from Padmavati Devi which was subsequently sold by the son of Padmavati Devi namely Rajeshwer Nath Alok in favour of Sanjay Kumar Sharda @ Sanjay Kumar Sarda. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class- XXIII, Ranchi on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses have found sufficient material in the record to proceed with the case against the petitioner;as already indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Biras Muni Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in Cr.M.P. No.790 of 2023 dated 19.11.2024 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar &Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, para-19 of which reads as under:-
“19. To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).”
in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with the ingredients of Section 420 and submits that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of making the complainant deliver any property to the petitioner.
5. It is then submitted that at best, on the basis of the allegations, the petitioner might have claimed that he has been cheated as the vendor has taken money from him without having title of the ownership of the property but by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner has cheated the complainant. Hence, it is submitted that even after the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, more so because the vendor of the petitioner claims that he is bonafide owner of the property sold by him to the petitioner and at best a civil dispute can be made out, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is for the purpose of wrecking vengeance by giving a cloak of criminal offence to a purely civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as the property of the complainant has been delivered by the co-accused to the petitioner, hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment; one of the essential ingredients to constitute the off
AI
To establish an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be delivery of property to the person deceived; mere allegations without this element do not suffice.
The court held that allegations against the petitioner-accused No.4 did not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC due to lack of fraudulent intent.
To substantiate IPC offences, essential elements must be satisfied; mere allegations are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
No offence under Sections 406/420 IPC without deception at transaction inception or entrustment with dishonest misappropriation; business account disputes civil, not criminal; proceedings quashed und....
To constitute offences under Sections 420, 323, and 504 IPC, essential ingredients of intent, injury, or insult must be established at the onset; mere breach of contract or abusive language without t....
No charge of inducement or agreement suffices for Sections 420 and 120B IPC; allegations do not meet essential elements, leading to quashing of the cognizance order.
Advance payment under oral sale agreement not entrustment for criminal breach of trust; mere failure to execute sale and selling to third party not cheating absent dishonest intention from inception.
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.