A criminal prosecution for cheating under Section 420 IPC is maintainable if there are specific allegations of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction to induce the victim to part with property, distinguishing it from a mere breach of contract.

By the Court:-

Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls.

3. 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 and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1484 of 2017 including the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in the said case, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad found sufficient materials to proceed inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner assured the complainant to get one vehicle financed with the help of one Arnab Gorai, the Credit Manager of Shri Ram Transport Finance Company and the complainant on 07.12.2005 executed sale-deed No.10875 for a consideration amount of Rs.87,500/- and sold 8‰ decimals of land to the petitioner but he was not given the tempo and though the petitioner got one tempo financed in the name of the complainant from the said company yet he did not give it to the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The said tempo was financed in the name of the complainant in the year 2009 and admittedly as mentioned in para-10 of the complaint, in Arbitration Case No.61 of 2016 award was passed in favour of the Shri Ram Transport Finance Company and the information about the award has been sent to the complainant and the co-accused has also filed a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide C.P. Case No.2537 of 2015 and after about eight years, this case has been falsely foisted just to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the land after paying the consideration amount.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nirmal Oraon vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:34403 wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 paragraph-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 press