##PAGE1##

( 2 0 2 6 : J H H C : 2 3 0 7 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 3204 of 2024

Rakesh Kumar @ Karmali @ Kamli, aged about 51 years, son of late

Ram Padarath Sharma, resident of Village-Bargai, Partand, P.O.-Lame,

P.S.-Sadar, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi

.... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Kumar Jitendra, son of Rajendra Prasad Sinha, resident of Shiv

Durga Mandir Lane, Madhudkam, P.O.-G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S.-

Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist.-Ranchi

…. Opp. Parties

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

: Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate

For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lalit Kr. Singh, Advocate

: Mr. Prakash Ambastha, Advocate

: Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate

…..

By the Court:-

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 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

1st Class-XXXI, Ranchi in G.R. No. 1606 of 2024 arising out of

Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 297 of 2022 whereby the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXXI, Ranchi has taken cognizance of

the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian

1

Cr.M.P. No.3204 of 2024

( 2 0 2 6 : J H H C : 2 3 0 7 )

Penal Code basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police

in the said case.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took

loan of Rs.6,64,926/- from the informant but did not repay the

loan and though the father of the petitioner assured the informant

that he will ensure that the loan amount with interest thereon is

returned to the informant but he as well as the petitioner left their

residence without giving any information.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant

police registered Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 297 of 2022 and

took up investigation of the case. After completion of

investigation police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner

for having committed the said offences. Basing upon the same,

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXXI, Ranchi has taken cognizance of

the offences.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalit

Chaturvedi & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. passed in

SLP (Crl.) No. 13485 of 2023 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that contractual

dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of

a criminal proceeding.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment

of this Court in the case of Puran Chandra Poddar vs. The State

of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in Cr.M.P. No. 332 of 2022 dated

2

Cr.M.P. No.3204 of 2024

( 2 0 2 6 : J H H C : 2 3 0 7 )

30.10.2023 and submits that in that case, 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 para-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 ent