IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 16 of 2025 Rajendra Singh, aged about 62 years, Son of Lal Narain Singh, Resident of Gill House, Dutta Lane, New Area, Morahabadi, P.O. P.S. Bariatu, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) ...... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Abhishek Kumar Singh, son of Parvesh Kumar Singh, R/o Eklavya Tower, Deepa Toli, Kathalmore, Agrora Road,, P.O. + P.S.- Pundag O.P., Dist.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. Though notice has validly been served upon the opp. Party no. 2 but no one turns up on behalf of the opp. Party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 06.08.2023 passed by learned JMFC, XXVII, Ranchi in connection with Jagarnathpur (Pundag O.P.) P.S. case no. 200 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. case no. 2213 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420 of IPC.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took a friendly loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the informant and subsequently, formed an unregistered partnership firm with the informant and with the promise of making available various contractual works allotted to the informant, on further occasions took Rs. 29,50,000/- in total. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the petitioner returned Rs. 12,20,000/- and also handed over the car and two bikes purchased in his name, and promised to repay Rs. 12,90,000/- within three months but did not repay the same rather demanded Rs. 30,00,000/- from the informant; as the informant was doing work in the name of his proprietary firm, which firm was having the same name as unregistered partnership firm between the informant and the complainant. There is for the allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner committed theft of car, which was given by the petitioner to the complainant, in which cash of Rs. 38,000/-, cheque books, mobile hand sets were kept by the complainant, while the theft was committed. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, the police registered Jagarnathpur (Pundag O.P.) P.S. case no. 200 of 2022 and took up investigation of the case. After investigation of the case, the police submitted chargesheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and basing upon the same, learned JMFC, XXVII, Ranchi took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC vide order dated 06.08.2023.

4. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sachin Garg vs. State of U.P. & Another reported 2024 INSC 72, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to its earlier judgments in the case of Dalip Kaur and Others v. Jagnar Singh and Another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, para 10 of which reads as under –

“10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri)

703] )”

Wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court o