IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M/s Laxmi Gifts & Toys through its proprietor Anurag Chandra Mishra, aged about 45 years, son of Dulare Mishra, resident of Q. No.- DS 1/15-A, Railway Colony, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist.-

Ranchi .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Pradeep Kumar Poddar, son of late Daya Ram Poddar, resident of C/o Gangadhar Dayaram, J.J. Road, Upper Bazar, P.O.-Ranchi, G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, Advocate …..

By the Court:-

I.A. No.2516 of 2026

1. Heard the parties.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XVIII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.9861 of 2022, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class-XVIII, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the tenant of the complainant and he used to pay rent up till April, 2020 but stopped paying rent from May, 2020 and adopted a delaying tactics to avoid payment of the rent of the said tenanted premises till October, 2020 and in October, 2020 the petitioner fled away vacating the tenanted premises and refused to pay the rent from May, 2020 to October, 2020.

4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XVIII, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neetu Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. dated 07.03.2022 in SLP (Crl.) No. 783 of 2020 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied 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)

wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of In