SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 4353

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
KRISHAN KUMAR PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
Cr.M.P. 2441 / 2020



##PAGE1##

( 2025:JHHC:38530 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.2441 of 2020

------

Krishna Kumar Prasad son of Ram Kumar Prasad, aged about 75

years, resident of Flat No.204-A, Ramnik Apartment, Judged Colony,

R.P.S. More, Danapur, P.O., P.S. and District-Patna.

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Pushpam Lata Prasad wife of Sanjay Kumar, Resident of M/10

Phase-2 above the shop, Prem Chandra Nagar Colony, P.O.

Pandeipur, District- Varanasi.

… Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III

: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding

as well as the order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2019 passed in

Complaint Case No.1596 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st

Class, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate-

1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable

under Sections 418, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Pena Code.

1

Cr. M.P. No.2441 of 2020

##PAGE2##

( 2025:JHHC:38530 )

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation

against the petitioner is that the petitioner knowing that the property is a

joint property and knowing pretty well that a partition suit was going on

between the petitioner and his coparceners has sold the joint property to

the co-accused Dr. Shambhu Prasad Singh, who purchased the joint

property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation

against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that even though the

entire allegation made against the petitioner in the complaint, statement

on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses are

considered to be true in their entirety still neither the offence punishable

under Section 418 nor the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 of

the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, even with the

aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that this

Court has already quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the co-

accused person Dr. Shambhu Prasad Singh by the judgement dated

07.08.2025 in Cr.M.P. No.2997 of 2019. Hence, it is submitted that the

prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel

for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the

prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that if the

allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their

entirety, then all the offences i.e., the offence punishable under Section

418, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 34 of the

2

Cr. M.P. No.2441 of 2020

##PAGE3##

( 2025:JHHC:38530 )

Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is

submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after

carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is

pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under

Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential

ingredient to constitute the said offence are as under:-

(1) The accused cheated a person;

(2) At the time of offence accused was bound by law or

legal contract to protect the interests of the person

whom he cheated;

(3) The obligation related to the transaction involving the

cheating;

(4) The accused had the knowledge that his act was likely

to cause wrongful loss to the person; whose interest he

was bound to protect.

7. Thus, it is pertinent to mention here that to constitute the offence

of cheating, the essential ingredients are:-

(i) Deception of a person either by making a fals

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top