IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Prem Nath Choudhary - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No. 2982 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusations against petitioners involve alleged cheating. (Para 2 , 4 , 11) |
| 2. necessary elements for ipc offences discussed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court finds no merit in the allegations. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. criminal proceeding quashed against petitioners. (Para 16 , 17) |
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 the prayer to quash/set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 11.06.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 1571 of 2018 involving the offences punishable under Sections 420/323/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case and the case is listed for evidence before charge before the trial court.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the petitioners went to the house of the complainant and approached him to purchase one Back Loader worth Rs. 23,81,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.7,50,000/-. After that the petitioners promised to deliver the vehicle within fifteen days therefrom but the petitioners did not give the vehicle to the complainant. On 25.11.2018, when the complainant went to the petitioners, the petitioners abused him and drove him out by pushing him. There is further allegation that the petitioners apart from money have obtained twelve pieces of blank cheques signed by the complainant and also obtained the signatures of the complainant and his wife on a blank paper but did not give the vehicle. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420/323/504 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case ofRam Binod Choudhary & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in2026 : JHHC :221 that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-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 in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.
6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofVikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in(2019) 14 SCC 207 , paragraph-24 of which reads as under:-
“24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value
Ram Binod Choudhary & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
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 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....
For an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be deception at inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to establish criminal liability.
A breach of contract cannot constitute cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
Under Section 482 CrPC, High Court cannot quash cheating proceedings via mini-trial or on defence pleas; deception from inception essential, oral evidence suffices for payment proof, civil caution in....
To substantiate IPC offences, essential elements must be satisfied; mere allegations are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
A loan default does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses.
Breach of contract via delayed sub-standard supply not offences under Sections 406/420 IPC without initial deception or property entrustment.
Quashing under Section 482 CrPC not warranted in cheating cases with deception at inception inducing parting with money, confirmed by police charge-sheet; Magistrate cannot alter sections at cognizan....
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.