Sale of undivided joint property share by co-sharers without dishonest intention at inception does not constitute cheating; third-party complainant lacks standing absent purchaser grievance; proceedings quashed 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 16.12.2022 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.6054 of 2019 by learned J.M.F.C, XXIX, Ranchi whereby and whereunder learned J.M.F.C has found prima facie case and has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC inter alia against the petitioners.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the of the petitioners have sold the joint family property of the complainant along with the sister of some of the petitioners and the maternal aunt of rest of the petitioner namely Indrani Sen Choudhary - who is the co-accused persons of this case, to the other co-accused person namely Avinash Kumar Singh; even though there has not been any partition of the said property sold; by metes and bounds.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arshad Neyas Khan vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 and submits that in para-19 thereof the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused person had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation of not fulfilling the agreement for sale of the said property.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shaikh Asraf Ali @ Ashraf Ali Seikh @ Asraf Ali Shekh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2023:JHHC:43910 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360, paragraph-13 of which reads as under:-

“13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of crim