SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 615

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P., Mr. Akhilesh Pathak, Advocate, Mr. Ram Manohar Pathak, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate

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.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420 and 120B - Criminal proceedings quashed - Allegations of cheating against the petitioner were found insufficient as there was no delivery of property to the complainant, nor any inducement established - The court emphasized that mere allegations do not constitute an offence under Section 420 without the essential ingredient of property delivery. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of process - Continuation of criminal proceedings without sufficient grounds constitutes an abuse of process of law. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced allegations of cheating related to a property transaction, where the complainant's father purchased property from a vendor who later sold it to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that he was the one cheated, as the vendor lacked title.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not meet the threshold for the offences charged, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process.

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted an offence under Section 420 and if the proceedings should continue.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without the delivery of property to the complainant, the essential elements of the offence under Section 420 were not satisfied, thus quashing the proceedings.

Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition allowed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top