A breach of contract, including the non-execution of a sale deed or retention of part consideration, constitutes a civil dispute and does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust unless facts demonstrate dishonest deception at the inception or formal entrustment followed by criminal misappropriation.

JUDGMENT

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 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 2924 of 2016 including order taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the drawing attention of this Court towards Supplementary Affidavit dated 28.04.2026 and submits that it has been mentioned therein that the case is fixed on 15.05.2025 before the learned trial court for the purpose of appearance and charge has not yet been framed in this case. It is then submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners entered into an agreement for sale of their land and took advance, but the men of the petitioners did not allow the complainant to carry out the construction of boundary wall and refused to return the advance taken.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegation made is against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offences, in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Magistrate; is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Satyabhama Dubey @ Satyabhama Devi and Others versus State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2024 Supreme (Jhk) 171and submits that this Court in that case, relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Another reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373, para-8 of which reads as under:-

“8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus:

“405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’.” Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made.”

and submit that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that when the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute non-payment or under-payment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence.

5. It is next submitted that in that case this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ram Biraji Devi and Another versus Umesh Kumar Singh and Another reported in AIR 2006 SC 2035 where it has been held that the dispute with regard to sale of property in which some advance has been rec