##PAGE1##

[2026:JHHC:22751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.733 of 2025

------

Bimlendu Shekhar Jha, aged about 64 years, Son of Late Shiva Shekhar Dwary, resident of Vill- Narayanpur, P.O. & P.S.-Jasidih,

Dist.-Deoghar. … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Nand Lal Baliyase, S/o-Sri Damodar Baliyase, R/o Bilasi Town Deoghar, P.O.-T. Bilasi, P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar.

… Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.

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

------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:-

I.A. No. 9478 of 2026 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instant

interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing.

Since the hearing of this Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this

interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Cr.M.P. No.733 of 2025

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 the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 31.12.2023 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar in connection with

1 Cr. M.P. No.733 of 2025

[2026:JHHC:22751

Complaint Case No. 832 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar has found prima facie case for the offences punishable

under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has taken loan from the Deoghar Zila (Shahri Kshetra) Rastriyakrit Bank Karmchari Bachat Evam Sakh Swavlambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Deoghar. While working with Bank of India, Deoghar Branch, he availed loan of Rs.9,30,000/- and has repaid Rs. 7,50,000/- of the said loan amount and the rate of interest was 10.5% but a sum of Rs. 4,85,000/- is still due and payable by the petitioner, which the petitioner is not repaying. On the basis of complaint filed by the Secretary of the said Cooperative Society and the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar found prima facie case; as already indicated above. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Umashankar Gopalika versus State of Bihar reported in (2005) 10 SCC

336 para 06 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 has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis

supplied)”

2 Cr. M.P. No.733 of 2025

[2026:JHHC:22751

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 and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not

amount to cheating.

4. It is next submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the very beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence punishable under Section 420

of the I.P.C. is not made out.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar and Others versus State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663

para 18 of which reads as under:-

“18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that