The mere breach of contract does not establish a case for criminal offences of cheating or breach of trust without evidence of deception or proper entrustment.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda in connection with Complaint Case No. 164 of 2023 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in capacity of In-charge principal of SBSSPSJ college, Pathargama engaged the complainant firstly for income tax work and then for EPF work. Admittedly, the payment regarding the income tax work has been made and some of the payment regarding the EPF work as also been done but a sum of Rs.15.90 lakhs remain due and payable to the petitioner.

4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has found prima facie case for the offences as already indicated above and passed summoning order.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofDelhi Race Club (1940) Limited & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in(2024) 10 SCC 690 wherein, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code have been discussed in paragraph nos. 35 and 36 of that judgment and it is further submitted that in paragraph no. 55 of the said judgment, it has been held that the offences punishable under and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are independent and distinct and two offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts; as they are antithetical to each other.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofAnukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060 and submits that in that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India deprecated the complainant to convert the civil dispute into criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofAtul Lohia & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in2025: JHHC :35569 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofV.Y. Jose vs. State of Gujarat reported in(2009) 3 SCC 78 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, this Court in that case 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