JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Cr.M.P. No.2094 of 2025 By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-III, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.10505 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-III, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant was appointed as CNF Agent of the petitioner no.1 Company and paid security deposit of Rs.15 lakhs. As part of the agreement, the complainant also arranged a godown on the assurance that, they will be paid Rs.45,000/- per month, Rs.2,000/- towards electricity bill, Rs.500/- towards internet expenses and Rs.20,000/- payment to be made to the accountant and assured to be paid commission. It is further alleged by the complainant that though the petitioners paid the due amount payable to the complainant till November 2021, but in December 2021, the petitioners adopted dilly-dallying tactics in respect of payment of the said agreed money and reduced the godown rent from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.15,000/- unilaterally without consulting the complainant. On 21.02.2022, the complaint resigned from the CNF Agent of the petitioner no.1-Company and demanded back his security money of Rs.15 lakhs, but the same was not paid to the complainant and when the complainant sent legal notice, the same was replied by the petitioners denying the claim of the complainant on some misleading pleas.

4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complaint and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-III, Ranchi has found prima facie case as already indicated above and passed the summoning order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kaldip Singh @ Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldip Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2024: JHHC: 25219 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sachin Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82, paragraph-17 of which reads as under:-

17. In the case of Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 10 SCC 663], a coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with a criminal complaint arising out of retention of bill amount in course of commercial transaction. The Court found essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust or dishonest intention of inducement, which formed the foundation of the complaint were missing. The High Court's judgment rejecting the plea for quashing the criminal proceeding was set aside by this Court. The reasoning for quashing the criminal proceeding would be revealed from paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Report, which reads:—

“18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly reta