For an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be deception at inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to establish criminal liability.

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 CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the Complaint Case no. 2406 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 29.04.2014 passed by learned JMFC, Dhanabd by which, learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420, 323, 341, 506 of the IPC inter alia against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he approached the complainant for giving Rs. 4,00,000/- for arranging a job of supervisor for the complainant in HEC. The complainant paid Rs. 3,35,000/- but the petitioner did not arrange any employment for the complainant and when the complainant demanded his money back, the petitioner abused the complainant and scuffled with him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of the Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. the State of Jharkhand & Another, 2026: JHHC :1986 and submits that in that this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma 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 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)

and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the deception must be played at the very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in that case, this court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur and Others v. Jagnar Singh and Another , (2009) 14 SCC 696 , paragraph 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 accused persons by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied on the judgment of this court in the case of Ram Binod Choudhary and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another , 2026: JHHC :221 wherein this court relied upon the judgment of