IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 125 of 2023 Vijay Kumar Chhaparia, aged about 72 years, son of late Mishri Lal Chhaparia, resident of Bano Manzil Road, Gahrikhana Chowk, Harmu Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist.-Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Deepak Sarawagi, son of late Raj Kumar Sarawagi, Proprietor of M/s Akshit Agencies, K.C. Complex, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand and resident of Kanke Road, Opposite Petrol Pump, P.O.-Gonda, P.S.-Gonda, Dist.-Ranchi-

834008, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Banka, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate : Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Arpan Kumar, Advocate …..

By the Court:-

I.A. No. 7460 of 2023

1. Heard the parties.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Cr.M.P. No. 125 of 2023 1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 3837 of 2020 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner purchased various articles from the shop of the complainant in the name and style of “Akshit Agencies” of which the complainant is the proprietor and intermittently the petitioner was paying money but he never paid the entire dues of the petitioner and as on 05.05.2020 a sum of Rs. 29,95,152/- was due and payable by the petitioner but he did not pay the same to the complainant, even though the complainant served legal notice upon him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph no.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 is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied)”

And submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties but if the intention has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that criminal proceeding should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of process of the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Anr. vs State o