A breach of contract cannot constitute cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.

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 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1827 of 2019, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXII, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 417/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners inducted the complainant as tenant in their shop by representing the complainant that the said shop is a commercial property. The complainant continued in possession of the said property by running his business but ultimately the petitioners did not give any documents to show that the property concerned is a commercial property and as the complainant stopped payment of the rent of the said shop, the petitioner no.2 along with her brother and others threatened the complainant of dire consequences unless he hands over the vacant possession of the shop in question.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to the complainant or wrongfully restraining him hence, the offence punishable under Sections 323 or 341 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety.

5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofMaya Rani vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025: JHHC : 19884, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofUma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in(2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under :-

6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied)

wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that unless the accused person plays deception since the very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Yogesh Beriwal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 4402 of 2022 dated 14.08.2023 wherein, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shanker Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra). It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties rather it is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant occupied the shop in question for a considerable period of time. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under such circumstances no offence of cheating is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted th