Breach of contract alone does not constitute cheating without initial deception; essential elements of the IPC offences were not established.

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 and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Gomia P.S. Case No.23 of 2015 arising out of G.R. No.175 of 2015 whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406, 468 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 used to do contractual job together with the Kathara Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited. The complainant authorized the petitioner to file a bid in a tender floated by the Kathara Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited, on behalf of the complainant and gave Rs.58,300/- by way of bank draft to be deposited along with bid documents. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner instead of depositing bid in the name of the complainant, deposited the demand draft for Rs.58,300/- along with the bid submitted in his own name and ultimately the petitioner succeeded in the said tender and work order was allotted to the petitioner and he did the work.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 01.07.2019 in A.B.A. No.2543 of 2019, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a demand draft of Rs.58,300/- as ad interim victim compensation and the said amount has already been paid by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2 and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also acknowledges the receipt of the said amount of Rs.58,300/-. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no evil intention as admittedly, the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 were doing contractual work together, so the said demand draft was given by the complainant/opposite party no.2 and has been used by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner do not claim the said Rs.58,300/- which has already been paid by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2 in terms of the order dated 01.07.2019 in A.B.A. No.2543 of 2019. It is next submitted that since it is a case of accidental error and there is no allegation of any deception being played by the petitioner since the beginning of the transactions between the parties, hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 is not made out.

5. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted amount, hence, the offence punishable under of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

6. So far as the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted that there is no allegation of creation of any false document against the petitioner, hence, neither the offence of forgery nor the offence of cheating for forgery punishable under of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Therefore, it is submitted that as none of the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat is made out, hence, the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the o