Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the loan dispute and subsequent criminal complaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments distinguishing between a civil breach of contract and the criminal offence of cheating. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. cheating requires fraudulent intent and deception at the inception of the transaction. (Para 9 , 10)
4. a loan of money does not constitute 'entrustment' required for a charge of criminal breach of trust. (Para 11)
5. quashing of proceedings when the essential legal ingredients of the alleged offences are absent. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

By the Court:-

I.A. No. 6403 of 2026

1. Heard the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

3. Since the 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 23.06.2023 in connection with C/1 Case No. 187 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has not been framed in this case and the case is next fixed to 05.06.2025 for pre-charge evidence.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took a friendly loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant but did not repay the same. Later on, he issued cheques which were dishonoured but the notice demanding the cheque amount returned with the report that the petitioner is not found in the given address. The complainant did not file any case in respect of dishonour of the cheque and non-payment of payment of cheque amount within the stipulated time. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant under the solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the said offences as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sripati Singh (since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2022) 18 SCC 614, the relevant portion of para-15 of which reads as under:-

“15. Xxxxx The mere dishonourment of the cheque cannot be construed as an act on the part of Respondent 2 with a deliberate intention to cheat and the mens rea in that regard cannot be gathered from the point the amount had been received. In the present facts and circumstances, there is no sufficient evidence to indicate the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out and therefore on that aspect, we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that the mere dishonourment of the cheque cannot be construed as an act on the part of respondent No.2 with a deliberate intention to cheat and the mens rea in that regard cannot be gathered from the point the amount had been received. It is then submitted that in the present facts and circumstances, there is no sufficient evidence to indicate the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2019 Supreme (SC) 337, para-14 of which reads as under:-

“14. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punish

Click Here to Read the rest of this document