IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3613 of 2022 Nirmal Oraon, aged about 32 years, s/o Jagarnath Oraon, r/o Indraprasth Colony, Jodatalab, Bariatu, P.O.+P.S.-Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi .... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sujit Kumar Singh, s/o Krishna Singh, r/o Sainik Colony, Dumardaga, P.S.-Khelgaon, Dist.-Ranchi …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate : Ms. Sanjana Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, 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 the entire criminal prosecution including the FIR being Lalpur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2022 involving the offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is going on at present and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the informant to sell 8.01 acres of land at the rate of Rs.3,55,000/- per decimal. The informant paid Rs.2,38,30,000/- to the petitioner but the informant took possession of 2.62 acres of land only and later on, the informant came to know that Original Suit No.184 of 2006 is pending in the court hence, he rescinded the agreement and entered into a fresh agreement with the petitioner on 26.07.2021. The informant demanded money back from the petitioner but the petitioner adopted a delaying tactic and did not return the money.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the copy of the agreement dated 26.07.2021 a copy of which is kept at Annexure-2 of the brief that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that if the petitioner cannot sell some land, the proportional amount will be paid by the petitioner to the informant to be adjusted from the advance taken by the petitioner and in case, the petitioner loses the case pending in the court, the petitioner will pay the money to the purchaser from the informant of total 38 decimals at the rate of Rs.3,55,000/-. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the copy of the judgment dated 16.09.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) XI, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 184 of 2006 that though the petitioner was not a party to the suit but the said suit has been dismissed and the finding given by the trial court before dismissing the suit that none of the parties could establish their right, title and interest over the suit land.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401 and submits that in paragraph no.10 thereof, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“10. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Merely because the original accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or might not have paid the amount in lieu of one month’s notice before terminating the agreement by itself cannot be aid to be a cheating and or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as alleged. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.”

that non-payment of the amount due and payable under an agreement itself cannot constitute the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. dated 01.03.2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2241 of 2021 and submits that in that case,