IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 1867 of 2019

1. Punam Gupta @ Poonam Gupta, W/o Pravesh Gupta,

Aged about 53 years;

2. Pratik Gupta, S/o Sri Pravesh Gupta, aged about 31

years, Proprietor M/s P.P. Publication,

Both are R/o M/S P. P. Publication, A-18/2, Plot no. 70, Ramaroad, Industrial Area, New Delhi 110015, Ρ.Ο. &

P.S. Ramaroad, District New Delhi

...... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Manish Gupta, Proprietor M/S Rajnish Books and

Stationary opposite K.B. Girls School Metrogali, Ratu

Road, P.O. & P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi.

….. Opposite Parties

With

Cr.M.P. No. 2614 of 2019

Praveen Ranjan @ Praveen Kumar Ranjan, Aged about 35 years, S/o Late Sahdew Singh R/o Village

Majhgawan, P.O. & P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra.

Presently residing at Village Geswe, P.S. Budhmu, P.O.

Turmuli, District Ranchi. ...... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Manish Gupta, S/o not known to the petitioner,

Proprietor M/S Rajnish Books and Stationary opposite K.B. Girls School Metrogali, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S.

Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. ….. Opposite Parties

For the Petitioners : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Abahy Kr. Tiwari , Addl. PP

Ms. Amrita Kumari , Addl. PP

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu , Adv.

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties. Since both these Criminal

Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed with common prayer,

hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are being disposed of with this common judgment.

2. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 22.11.2018 arising out of Complaint Case no. 862 of 2017 in which, learned JMFC, Ranchi, has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section

420 / 34 of the IPC.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners entered into a business transaction with the opposite party no. 2 and issued firstly, non –CTS cheque and later on, issued a CTS cheque and as per the requirement of the company, the non-CTS cheque was not returned to the petitioner rather the same was used by the complainant for withdrawing money from the bank account of the petitioners. As the cheque was dishonoured the opposite party no. 2 filed Complaint case no. 862 of 2017 against the petitioners in the court of JMFC, Ranchi and the allegation against the petitioner of CrMP no. 2614 of 2019 is that he is the Agent of the co-accused petitioners of CrMP 1867 of 2019 Punam Gupta @ Poonam Gupta and Pratik Gupta.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact, the petitioners of this case are aggrieved persons and the petitioner no. 1 being Punam Gupta @ Poonam Gupta of Cr.MP no. 1867 of 2019 has already filed Complaint Case being C.C. No.17212 of 2016 before the learned court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West Delhi, Tis Hazari courts, Delhi against the Opp. Party no. 2- Complainant of this case, for having committed the offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I.Act for realization of sum of Rs. 8,37,845/-wherefor the complainant issued a cheque of Rs. 8,10,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, which upon being presented in the bank, was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Angad Kumar Pandey vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2023 Supreme (JHK) 1096 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 4 SCC

168, para -15 of which reads as under: -

“15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intentio