Balmukund Pathak vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Town P.S. Case No.135 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken a  friendly loan from the informant  but only repaid Rs.3,00,000/- of the said loan amount but he is not repaying the rest of the loan amount. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.135 of 2021 and took up the investigation of the case and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is going on at present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  of  India  in  the  case  of  Vinod  Natesan  vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401 and submits that therein  in  the  facts  of  that  case  when  the  dispute  between  the  parties can  be  said  to  be  civil  dispute  and  it  was  tried  to  be  converted  into  a criminal dispute; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the entire criminal proceeding.

Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L. Chongthu vs. State of Bihar reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511 paragraph-21 (iii) of which reads as under:-

“21. (i)

(ii)

(iii)

While  it is  well  acknowledged and  recognised that the process of investigation has many moving parts and is therefore impractical to have strict timelines in place, at the same time, the discussion made in the earlier part of this judgement, clearly establishes that investigations cannot continue endlessly. The accused is not out of place to expect, after a certain point in time, certainty- about the charges against him, giving him ample time to preparing plead his defence. If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing. It is clarified that delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds, and the Court, if in its wisdom, decides to entertain this application, other grounds will also have to be considered.” (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if  the  doors  of  the  High  Court  have  been  knocked  by  the  accused  for quashing and delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds for quashing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case  of  Reena Lata @  Rina Lata vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:1072 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, paragraph-10 of which reads as under:-

“10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a  question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non- refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See  Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )”(emphasis supplied)

and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated  the  settled principle  of  law  that  if  the  dispute  between  the parties is essentially a civil dispute resulting from the breach of contract

on the part of the accused person, non-refunding the amount of advance, the same wouldnot constitute the offence of cheating.

It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another  reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph- 13 of which reads as under:-

“13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4  SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case  before  us,  admittedly  the  appellant  was  trapped  in  economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a  summary civil suit seeking recovery  of  the  loan  amount  which  is  still  pending  adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.”

and submits that therein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that mere inabilityof the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulentor dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.

It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph-6 of 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)

It is further submitted that there is an inordinate delay in institution of the case as more than four (4) years have already elapsed since the registration of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the allegation against  the  petitioner  is  false.  It  is  then  submitted  that  the  agreement produced by the informant is a forged document. The petitioner has admittedly returned a substantial part of money. It is also submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil and a cloak of criminal case has been given to a purely civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that materials in the record are sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that, the only allegation against the petitioner is  that  the  petitioner did  not  return  the entire  amount  of  the  friendly loan  which  he  took  from  the  informant.  It  is  the  admitted  case  of  the informant that the petitioner has paid substantial amount of money taken by him i.e, Rs.3,00,000/-. There is no allegation against the petitioner of  playing deception since the beginning  of  the transaction between the parties. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner  are  considered  to  be  true,  still  the  offence  punishable  under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

So far as the offence punishable under  Section 405 of the  Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no case of entrustment of any property in terms of the word ‘entrusted’ used in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took a friendly loan. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another (supra), the law is well settled that mere inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.

Under  such  circumstances,  this  Court  has  no  hesitation  in  holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.  As  neither  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  420  of  the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against him are considered to be true, therefore, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount  to  abuse  of  process  of  law.  Hence,  this  is  a fit  case  where  the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Town P.S. Case No.135 of 2021, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Town P.S. Case No.135 of 2021, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above.

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. 16. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition,  pending  interlocutory  application,  if  any,  stands  disposed  of being infructuous.