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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1070

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
TARKESHWAR TIWARY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
Cr.M.P. 1502 / 2023



##PAGE1##

(2026:JHHC:2173)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.1502 of 2023

------

Tarkeshwar Tiwary aged about 45 Years S/O Bhuvneshwar Tiwary

R/O Village- 32, Kalyanpur Baridih Basti P.O. Baridih P.S.-

Sidhgora, Town- Jamshedpur District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Pratap Singh S/O Babulal R/O A-3, Suguna Colony, Birsanagar,

Zone No.8, P.O. & P.S.- Birsanagar Town- Jamshedpur District- East

Singhbhum (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate

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

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

Mr. Birat 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 order dated 02.02.2023

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in

connection with Complaint Case No.1573 of 2022 whereby and where

under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found

prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420

of the Indian Penal Code.

1

Cr. M.P. No.1502 of 2023

##PAGE2##

(2026:JHHC:2173)

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 files a counter-

affidavit.

4. Let the same be kept in the record.

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had

taken three (3) shops of the complainant on rent and paid rent for some

time but he is not paying rent of the said shop since 2015.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neetu Singh & Others

vs. State of U.P. passed in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281 and submits that

therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled

principle of law that failure to pay rent is not a penal offence under the

Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the allegation against the

petitioner is false. It is further submitted that even if the entire

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

entirety still neither the offence punishable under Section 406 nor the

offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made

out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the father of the

complainant has already sold the entire shop premises to the petitioner

and thereafter the petitioner registered himself with the JUSCO and

paying taxes to JUSCO. It is further submitted that there is inordinate

and unexplained delay of at least seven (7) years in filing the complaint.

It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant

Cr.M.P., be allowed.

2

Cr. M.P. No.1502 of 2023

##PAGE3##

(2026:JHHC:2173)

7. Learned Addl. P. P. 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 the petitioner has not yet appeared before the trial court. It

is further submitted that it is false to say that the father of the

complainant has sold the property to the petitioner. Hence, it is

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

8. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been

reiterated by 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-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

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