No cheating offence without deception from transaction's inception; absence of forgery precludes related charges; no vicarious liability for directors; prolonged investigation without charge sheet justifies quashing as abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet 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 and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.175 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2879 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the investigation of the case is still going on for over 9 years and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners are the directors of M/s Toplink Toyota, Dhanbad and the informant purchased Toyota Etios vehicle from the showroom of the said M/s Toplink Toyota, Dhanbad. At the time of purchase, the representatives of the petitioners impressed upon the informant to get the said vehicle insured, assuring that upon said insurance being done, in case of any damage to the vehicle, the insurance company will bear the expenses for repairing of the vehicle because of the damages sustained in any accident, from bumper to bumper. The vehicle of the informant met with an accident by dashing a buffalo, the insurance company only paid Rs.24,704/- and the representative of the petitioners deducted Rs.19,657/- from the debit card of the informant.

6. The informant filed Complaint Case No.1327 of 2017 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.; police registered Govindpur P.S. Case No. 175 of 2017 and took up investigation of the case which is still going on.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Choudhary & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:221 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karanataka & Others reported in (2022) 14 SCC 572 wherein in paragraph-44, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the innumerable instances where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute and such an exercise in nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety.

8. 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 Uma 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India h