Mere breach of friendly loan repayment or promised work without dishonest intention from inception or entrustment does not constitute offences under Sections 406 or 420 IPC; remains civil dispute.

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 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2022 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar dismissed the criminal revision which was directed against the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar in connection with Complaint Case No. 207 of 2019, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner who is the complainant of Complaint Case No. 207 of 2019 filed the complaint alleging that the opposite party no.2 took a friendly loan of Rs.3,000/- to meet his expenses and promised to get it adjusted against wages but he did not work as a mason nor refunded the amount and threatened to implicate the petitioner in offences punishable under the panel provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. As from the record, it appeared to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar that no dishonest intention at the time of taking loan on the part of the opposite party no.2 could be made out so, neither the offence of criminal breach of trust nor the offence of cheating could be made out from the materials in the record and dismissed the complaint. Vide order dated 24.11.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2022, the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar considered the settled principle of law that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course and after going through the materials in the record, formed an opinion that there is no sufficient evidence in the record to constitute any offence punishable in law hence, the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar not finding any illegality, ambiguity or absurdity either on the point of facts or on the point of law of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar, impugned before it, affirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar and dismissed the criminal revision.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar failed to consider the case of the complainant and has not considered the statement of the inquiry witnesses who have supported the case of the complainant. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar ought to have found sufficient material for proceeding against the opposite party no.2 herein for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and having not done so, the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar ought to have allowed the criminal revision. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that at the most the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses constitute a civil dispute but neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of th