No offences under IPC 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34 against petitioner absent forgery, entrustment, or initial deception allegations despite associate role and witnessing agreement; FIR quashed under CrPC 482 qua petitioner.

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 and set aside the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.142 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner who is an associate of the co-accused namely Alok Kumar contacted the informant over the phone to purchase the land and accompanied him to the office of the co- accused Alok Kumar. The further allegation of the informant is that the said Alok Kumar showed the documents of the certain land to the informant. There was an agreement between the informant and the co- accused Alok Kumar for purchasing of 4 decimals of land by the informant at the rate of Rs.8 lakhs/decimal. The informant paid Rs.13,15,000/-, but because of delay in registration of the sale deed, co- accused Alok Kumar entered into an agreement with the informant in which the petitioner was a witness. There is further allegation that Alok Kumar repeatedly avoided the registration of the sale deed and in the meanwhile, the informant paid Rs.5 lakh each to the mother and wife of the Alok Kumar and later on, the informant could know that the documents relating to the land were forged documents and the said land belongs to someone else and there is no agreement with the land owner and Alok Kumar. When the informant demanded back his money from Alok Kumar and Alok Kumar gave him five cheques in total for Rs.23,15,000/-, but the said cheques were dishonored because of insufficiency of funds in the account.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Verma & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2025::35560 and submits that therein this Court has held that if there is no entrustment to any property to the accused person, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the accused persons.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Choudhary & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026::221 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon judgement 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 has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of