Allegations must demonstrate elements of criminal offenses; lack of evidence led to quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though the opposite party no.2 has appeared through a counsel but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls.

3. 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 the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance and order issuing summons dated 11.08.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No. 1515 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found that the offences punishable under Section 323/341/406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of the materials in the record and issued the summoning order.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has made the complainant a guarantor in the loan account of Shivani Devi in respect of purchasing a car after taking a loan of Rs.6,20,000/-, even though the petitioner never stood a guarantor in the said purchase and only took a solar lamp for which payment has already been made. There is further allegation that the signature of the complainant has been forged and the petitioner is abusing the complainant and is doing marpit (beating) and is demanding the loan amount. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case ofM/s Budh Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2025: JHHC :34204 that in that case, this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofBinod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another, (2014) 10 SCC 663, paragraph-18 of which reads as under :-

“18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.”( Emphasis supplied)

Wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that property was retained by the accused person but it must also be shown that the accused person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same.

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 of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat &