Quashing under Section 482 CrPC not warranted in cheating cases with deception at inception inducing parting with money, confirmed by police charge-sheet; Magistrate cannot alter sections at cognizance on police report.

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 the entire criminal proceedings, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 227 of 2022 arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019 including the order dated 14.07.2022 passed in the said case whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 504, 379, 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being a leader of a political party after coming to know about the sufferings of the informant who is a retired unmarried teacher and who was old and ailing, deceived the informant by alluring her to get a land in front of his house sold to her and offered the informant to get a house constructed for her so that she can get the medical facilities by residing in the Simdega town, though the petitioner had no intention to do any such thing and thus fraudulently and dishonestly induced the informant to pay Rs.36,87,000/- to him and to other persons close to the petitioner, in the guise that the petitioner is constructing a house for the informant in front of his house which will ultimately be sold to the informant but when all the money of the informant was taken away by the petitioner, the petitioner stopped going to the house of the informant and when the informant ultimately came to know that she has been cheated, she approached the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. Her complaint was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, to the Thetaitanger Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the informant to execute the sale deed, within two months but even after two months the petitioner did not sell the land and house to the informant; nor did he return the money taken by him to the informant but on the other hand resorted to committing criminal intimidation by threatening the informant from demanding back the money and demanded extortion on the informant. The informant, thereafter, filed Complaint Case No. 106 of 2019 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega; which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Simdega P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019 was registered and police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the said offences and on the basis of the police report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not appeared in the court concerned and the case is next fixed on 13.02.2026 for appearance and charge has not yet been framed in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 and submits that therein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 an offence of cheating. I