Criminal prosecution for cheating is sustainable if fraudulent or dishonest intention is evident from the inception of the transaction, such as through impersonation, distinguishing it from a mere civil breach of contract.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. being Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024, the charge sheet No. 349 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 and the cognizance order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda in connection with Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 99 of 2026 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda has taken cognizance against the petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner though he is not a contractor, deceived the informant by posing himself as a contractor and induced the informant so deceived to part with Rs.53,14,318/- by transferring the said amount of money to the account of the petitioner and other huge amounts of money to the accounts of other persons as instructed by the petitioner and further deceived the informant that upon investing of such amount, the informant will get 20 percent of the invested amount as profit but returned only Rs.7,60,000/- and cheated the informant of Rs.74,51,483/-.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioner to be true in their entirety and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which the charge sheet was submitted by the police vide the order dated 22.01.2026 in G.R. Case No. 99 of 2026 arising out of Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 INSC 512 and submits that in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 wherein, it was observed that that 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is no fraudulent or dishonest intention shown right at the beginning of the transaction by the petitioner, hence, neither of the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda, is in fact, made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the very beginning of the transaction between the parties as though the petitioner is not a contractor but he claimed himself to be a contractor and thus by deceiving the informant, induced the informant so decei