For an offence under Section 420 IPC, essential deception must exist from the transaction's inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to constitute cheating.

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 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1666 of 2021 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant placed an order for supply of face mask worth Rs.11,02,500/- but the petitioner supplied the same showing value of the product to be Rs. 81,000/- only that too not in the name of the complainant. On being approached by the complainant, the petitioner intimated the complainant that even though the goods are not in the name of the complainant but the same was dispatched to the complainant and the transporter also intimated the complainant that the same article is to be handed over to the complainant but the complainant did not receive the same and lodged a written report with the Jusalai police station basing upon which Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 91 of 2020 was registered and police after completion of the investigation submitted final report upon finding that the allegations against the petitioner to be not true and recommended initiation of the proceeding against the complainant for having committed the offence punishable under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The informant thereafter filed Complaint-cum-Protest Case No. 1666 of 2021 and basing upon the complaint-cum-protest petition, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and passed a summoning order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofAnukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, relied upon its own judgment in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in2025 INSC 869, and wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India disapproved the practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies; by observing that money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution, where the dispute is essentially civil in nature and submits that in this case also as the dispute is essentially a civil dispute hence, filing of the criminal case is an abuse of process of law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofRajan Choudhary vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. and allied cases reported in2025:JHHC:23712 and submits that this Court in that case 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 chea