##PAGE1##

( 2025:JHHC:38706 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 1603 of 2024

Mahendra Chourasiya, aged about 34 years, Son of Ganesh Chourasia,

Resident of Budihbir, P.O. –Harinamar, P.S. –Chainpur, District -

Palamau.

.... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Deepak Kumar, S/o Mritunjay Prasad, R/o Ambedkar Colony,

Block No.7, P.O. –Dhori, P.S. –Bermo, District –Bokaro, Jharkhand.

…. Opp. Parties

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P.

…..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated

19.08.2023 along with the entire criminal proceeding of Bermo P.S.

Case No. 128 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 821 of 2017

in which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at

Tenughat has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner

purchased several articles from the informant and on each

1

Cr.M.P. No.1603 of 2024

( 2025:JHHC:38706 )

purchase he made underpayment by making some amount due

and ultimately a sum of Rs.1,11,200/- had become due and

payable out of which the petitioner transferred Rs.15,000/- to the

bank account of the complainant but did not pay the remaining

amount of Rs.96,200/-.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying

upon the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the

case of Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. The State of Gujarat & Another

reported in 2025 INSC 614, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India relied upon its own Judgment in the case of Prof. R.K.

Vijayasarathy and Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam and Anr., reported

in (2019) 16 SCC 739 para -16 to 18 of which reads as under:-

“16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of

cheating are as follows:

16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest

inducement of a person by deceiving him:

16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally

induced to deliver any property to any person or to

consent that any person shall retain any property, or

16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally

induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would

not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or

omission should be one which caused or is likely to

cause damage or harm to the person induced in body,

mind, reputation or property.

17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an

essential ingredient of the offence. A person who

dishonestly induces another person to deliver any

property is liable for the offence of cheating.

18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:

“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of

property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly

induces the person deceived to deliver any property

to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole

or any part of a valuable security, or anything which

2

Cr.M.P. No.1603 of 2024

( 2025:JHHC:38706 )

is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being

converted into a valuable security, shall be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to seven years, and shall also be

liable to fine.”

Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the

essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in that case, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India also relied upon the Judgment of AM

Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO & Another, reported in

2024 INSC 233, para -13 of which reads as under:-

“13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the

provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint

must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC

are made out and the person cheated must have been

dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any