1

Cr.M.P. No.2133 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 2133 of 2023

Rahul Jha, aged about 53 years, s/o Sri Chandra Deo Jha Partner- M/s.

R.R. Construction, Opposite Hotel Yuvraj Palace, P.O + P.S.- Doranda,

Ranchi

.... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Mukesh Kumar Singh, son of late S.N. Singh, aged 47 years, resident of

Plot No. 147, Lalit Narayan Mishra Colony, Itki Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S.

Pandra, Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand)

….

Opp. Parties

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate

: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

: Mr. Mritunjay Choudhary, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.

For O.P. No.2

: None

…..

By the Court:-

1.

Heard the parties.

2.

No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of

repeated calls though notice has been validly served upon the

opposite party no.2.

3.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer

for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the

petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 10686 of 2022

including the order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ranchi, whereby and where under,

2

Cr.M.P. No.2133 of 2023

cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section

406 of Indian Penal Code.

4.

The brief facts of the case is that the M/s. Privilege CCL

Employees Grih Nirman Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Limited

engaged the complainant as a consultant for construction of a

cluster of houses of the said society with a promise to pay

Rs.200/- per sq. ft. of the construction and the co-accused-

executive members of the said M/s. Privilege CCL Employees

Grih Nirman Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Limited also obtained

necessary permission for the said cooperative society but there

was dispute between the complainant and the said co-operative

society in respect of engaging the contractor to carry out the

construction. While the complainant proposed engagement of

M/s Monalisa Construction, the co-accused persons in capacity of

executive members of M/s. Privilege CCL Employees Grih

Nirman Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Limited engaged M/s R.R.

Construction of which the petitioner is a partner and thereafter

the co-accused-executive members of M/s. Privilege CCL

Employees Grih Nirman Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Limited

unilaterally cancelled the agreement entered into with the

complainant and being aggrieved by that, the complainant

instituted this case.

5.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even

assuming for the sake of argument that the contents of the

complainant, statement under solemn affirmation of the

complainant and the statement of inquiry witnesses are true in its

3

Cr.M.P. No.2133 of 2023

entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian

Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. In this respect,

the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.N.G. Bharateesh

Reedy vs. Ramesh Ranganathan & Anr. reported in 2022 SCC

OnLine SC 1061, paragraph nos. 21 to 24 of which reads as

under:-

21. The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two

ingredients : (i) entrusting any person with property, or

with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person

entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his

own use that property to the detriment of the person

who entrusted it.

22. In Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar v. State of

Karnataka6 a two-judge bench restated the essential

ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust in

the following words:

“7