For offences under IPC Sections 420 and 406, there must be initial deception and property entrustment; lack of such elements results in quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

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 entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.4572 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 09.08.2019 passed by 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 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant deposited a cheque in his bank account with State Bank of India and the said cheque was not honoured; nor the cheque which he presented in his bank account was returned. On being asked by the complainant, the petitioner who was the AGM, State Bank of India and the Administrative Head of the Hatia Branch of State Bank of India, whom the complainant claims to be the branch manager, told the complainant that he does not have the cheque and he will not return the cheque concerned to the complainant. A legal notice was given to the petitioner to which he did not respond.

4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complaint and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case as already indicated above and passed the summoning order against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofMaya Rani vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 2950, submits 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 & 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 it was held that every breach of contract would not give rise to the 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 will not amount to cheating.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case, this court also relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311, para-12 of which reads as under:-

“12.xxxx In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust can