Under Section 482 CrPC, High Court cannot quash cheating proceedings via mini-trial or on defence pleas; deception from inception essential, oral evidence suffices for payment proof, civil caution inapplicable to clear fraud.

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 order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 2288 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Dhanbad has found sufficient materials against the petitioners to proceed against them for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, cheated the complainant by claiming to be the owner of the land of which they, knowing pretty well that they are not the owner, deceived the complainant by posing themselves as the owner of the land, induced the complainant to part with Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners and when the complainant went to the land concerned, the real owner of the land displayed the documents of the ownership of the land and when the complainant demanded the documents of the land of the petitioners, who claimed themselves to be the owner, the petitioners failed to produce the same and also did not pay back the cheated amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on the solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ruchika Kakar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No. 216 of 2024 dated 8th May, 2024 and submits that therein, 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 reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused person must play deception since the very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124, paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of which read as under:-

“24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. , (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.

25. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further observed that : (Indian Oil Corpn. case [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , SCC p. 749, para 13)

“13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discoura