Fraudulent inducement and dishonesty must be established to constitute cheating under IPC; a mere breach of contract does not suffice.

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 and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 05.08.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.3729 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, being a developer approached the complainant to develop his land but did not develop his land and by deceiving with dishonest and fraudulent intention made the complainant to part with his original title documents of the land, under the guise of using the same for the purpose of obtaining a sanction map for construction of the building over the said land, but even then the petitioner stopped construction and upon repeated demand of the complainant, the petitioner has not given the same to the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others vs. The State of West Bengal & Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 305 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in para-32 and the ingredients of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code in the light of its earlier judgments.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofBimlendra Kumar Choudhary & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another, 2025: JHHC :25967 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofDalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 696, para 10 of which reads as under:-

“10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. [See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703]” (Emphasis supplied)

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating.

6. It is next submitted that, in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofUma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another, (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