To establish an offense under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, it is essential to demonstrate entrustment and deception from the transaction's inception, respectively; lack of these elements leads to the quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Since, both these cases have been filed with the same prayer arising out the same case, hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the same prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.2800 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

4. The allegation against the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.1776 of 2020 namely Krishna Kumar Marandi @ Krishna Marandi is that he being the Circle Officer, Nirsa and the petitioner of Cr.M.P No.2713 of 2019 being the Block Development Officer, Kaliasol in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons; without any no objection certificate furnished by the villagers concerned got constructed one Anganbari Kendra, Kara Patthar, Rai Tola in a place near the School instead of constructing the same at the identified place over plot no.505, Khata No.17, Mauza No.183, Kharapathar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the charge has not yet been framed in this case and the case is next fixed on 16.01.2026 for evidence before charge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofDelhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 and submits that therein it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the FIR cannot be maintained under both the Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as the ingredients of both the sections are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofRamdhan Mahto & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in2025: JHHC : 30990 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. reported in(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.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits 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 & Ano