IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 3842 of 2023

Mithlesh Kumar Mishra, aged about 43 years, S/o. Sri Fekan Mishra, resident of Village & P.O. –Tantri, P.S. –Jaridih, District –Bokaro

(Jharkhand). .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Pramhans Dubey, S/o Late Bhagwanji Dubey, resident of Village – Vaikunthpur, P.O. –Machkama, P.S. –Hussainganj, District –Siwan (Bihar). Presently residing at Bata Gali, Phusro Bazar, P.O. & 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. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate

: Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1794 of 2018 including the order dated 05.12.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima –facie case against the petitioner for having committed the

offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a truck from the complainant for a total consideration amount of Rs.6,40,000/- and paid only Rs.60,000/- but did not pay the remaining amount.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under :-

6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied)

submits that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must have the intention to deceive the victim since the very beginning of the transaction between them but if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. The 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 pressurise parties