IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3165 of 2022

1. Zahid Ansari, aged about 45 years, son of late Hashim Ansari, resident of Irba, Karma Toli, P.O.-Irba, P.S.-Ormanjhi, Dist.-Ranchi

2. Mukhtar Ahsan, aged about 72 years, son of late Fakhruddin Ansari, resident of College Road, Kabir Nagar, P.O.-Kapali, P.S.-

Chandil, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan .... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Mahjabeen Akhtar, wife of Khurshid Ekram Ansari, resident of KGN Colony, Near Bawangora, Urdu Middle School, Old Purulia Road, Jakir Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Azad Nagar, Dist.-East Singhbhum …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Addl. P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Seema Kumari Singh, Advocate …..

By the Court:-

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 order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C1 Case No. 733 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has passed summoning order against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Puran Chandra Poddar vs. The State of Jharkhand dated 30.10.2023 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360, paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under :-

“13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.”

(Emphasis supplied)

and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties and further it was observed in that case that the criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurize parties to settle civil disputes.

4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case this Court 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 wh