MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
( 2026:JHHC:32575 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2943 of 2026
------
Mahendra Kumar Mishra @ Mahendra Mishra, aged about 66 years,
S/o Late Baikunth Nath Mishra, R/o-Bangali Para Road, Jugsalai,
P.O. + P.S.-Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, State-
Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dipak Kumar Jha, S/o Late D. Jha, R/o Q No.72, Main Road,
Sidhgora, P.O. + P.S.-Agrico, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum,
State-Jharkhand.
…
Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : None
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party
no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of
repeated calls.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the
st
order dated 07.06.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class,
Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No.1039 of 2015 whereby and
1
Cr. M.P. No.2943 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32575 )
st
where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Jamshedpur has
found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 418/34
of the Indian Penal Code and to quash the order dated 06.08.2025 passed
st
by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Jamshedpur whereby and
whereunder the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been
rejected as also to quash the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the
Criminal Revision No.181 of 2025 has been dismissed.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant/opposite party
no.2 was working as a Crane Operator in the company namely M/s
Processing Promoters represented through the petitioner who was the
contractor engaged by the said M/s Tata Steel Processing & Distribution
Ltd.. On 07.11.2011 at about 12:45 p.m., due to negligence of the factory
management, the L-Hook/C-Hook of the crane got damaged and fell on
the foot of the complainant/opposite party no.2 causing injury of such a
nature that ultimately the left leg of the complainant/opposite party no.2
was to be amputated and though the petitioner got the
complainant/opposite party no.2 admitted in TMH, Hospital and
subsequently he was referred to the hospital at Kolkata for better
treatment to save his life. The complainant was treated at Kolkata also, or
about three months but thereafter the petitioner stopped giving financial
assistance to the complainant/opposite party no.2 and because of lack of
proper treatment, the leg of the complainant/opposite party no.2 was
amputated and though the company assured the family members of the
2
Cr. M.P. No.2943 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32575 )
complainant/opposite party no.2 of a company service but the
management did not take care of the demand of the
complainant/opposite party no.2 and also attempted to grab the sum of
Rs.10 lakhs which was given to the complainant for his better future and
treatment.
5. On the basis of the C/1 Case No.1039 of 2015 being referred to
police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., police registered Sidhgora P.S. Case
No.107 of 2014 and took up investigation of the case and after
investigation of the case, police found that the allegations was an error of
fact and submitted final report. Being aggrieved by the same, the
complainant/opposite party no.2 filed protest-cum-complaint case which
was registered as C/1 Case No.1039 of 2015 and in the said case, the
statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant was recorded and
basing upon the materials in the record, the learned trial Court found
prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 418/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and passed the summoning order inter alia against the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Medchl Chemicals and
Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. and Others reported in (2000) 3
SCC 269 and submits that in para-11 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India dealt with the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
418 of the Indian Penal Code and has held that in order to constitute the
inter alia
offence under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code, the guilty
3
Cr. M.P. No.2943 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32575 )
intent, at the time of making the promise is a requirement and an essential
and in the absence of the same the allegations would not attract inter alia
the provisions of Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that
there it has also been mentioned that illustration to Section 415 makes the
position clear enough to indicate that mere failure to deliver in breach of
an agreement would not amount to cheating, but is liable only to a civil
action for breach of contract.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation
against the petitioner is false even if the entire allegation made against the
petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence
punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out
against the petitioner even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur also committed a grave
illegality by not appreciating the same and dismissing the criminal
revision by erroneously holding that the accused no.4 being in conspiracy
with the accused no.1 to 3 sent a letter to the complainant/opposite party
no.2 by saying that the wife of the complainant/opposite party no.2 is
appointed to work in his office at Jugsalai, Jamshedpur amounts to
cheating. It is then submitted that the learned Revisional Court has
erroneously held that the proprietor of M/s Processing Promoters was
under bounden duty and the accused was under the legal contract and
interest of the same has to be protected by the accused and transaction
4
Cr. M.P. No.2943 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32575 )
related to the financial head has not been provided to the complainant-
informant, for after care of the incident; are sufficient to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code. It is lastly
submitted that the prayer as prayed for, by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P.,
be allowed.
9. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P and submit that even if the entire allegations made against the
petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence
punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is made out
against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being
without any merit, be dismissed.
10. 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 it is a settled principle of law that in order
to establish the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal
Code, the essential ingredients of the offence are as under:-
(i) Accused cheated a person;
(ii) At the time of offence accused was bound by law or legal
contract to protect the interests of the person whom he cheated;
(iii) The obligation related to the transaction involving the cheating;
(iv) Accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause
wrongful loss to the person cheated and whose interest he was
bound to protect.
11. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia &
5
Cr. M.P. No.2943 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32575 )
Ors vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2009) 7 SCC 712 , that an
offence of cheating cannot be said to have been made out unless the
following ingredients are satisfied:-
(i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading
representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act
or omission;
(ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either
deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by
any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he
was not so deceived; and
(iii) Such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or
harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation is that the
petitioner being the proprietor of M/s Processing Promoters was engaged
by the principal employer M/s Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd.
and while the complainant/opposite party no.2 working under the
petitioner/contractor, the L-Hook/C-Hook of the chain fell down
accidentally and hit the left leg of the complainant/opposite party no.2.
The only allegation against the petitioner is that though the petitioner
promised to meet the entire expenditure of his treatment, but the
petitioner and the co-accused persons only paid treatment expenses for a
period of 03 months and thereafter, they did not pay the same.
13. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors
reported in (2008) 13 SCC 678 that bare perusal of the Section 415 read
6
Cr. M.P. No.2943 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32575 )
with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code clearly led to the conclusion
that fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused must
be at the inception and not at the subsequent stage.
14. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble
Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State
Supreme Court of India in the case of
of Bihar & Another 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)
wherein it was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that 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 and in this case, there is absolutely no allegation against the
petitioner of deceiving the complainant/opposite party no.2 in any
manner. Even assuming for the sake of argument, that the petitioner
stopped bearing the medical expenses of the complainant/opposite party
no.2 after 03 months of his treatment, but the same by itself, in the
considered opinion of the Court will not amount to deception that is to
7
Cr. M.P. No.2943 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32575 )
say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation since the beginning of the
transaction between the parties.
15. 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 in their entirety, still the same is insufficient to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code even with
the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, this Court is of the
considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against
the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case
where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 07.06.2017
st
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Jamshedpur in connection
with C/1 Case No.1039 of 2015 whereby and where under the learned
st
Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the
offence punishable under Sections 418/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
st
the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1
Class, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the discharge petition filed
by the petitioner has been rejected; as also the order dated 08.07.2026
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur whereby
and whereunder the Criminal Revision No.181 of 2025 has been
dismissed, be quashed and set aside.
16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order
st
dated 07.06.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class,
Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No.1039 of 2015 whereby and
st
where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Jamshedpur has
8
Cr. M.P. No.2943 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32575 )
found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 418/34
of the Indian Penal Code and the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the
st
learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Jamshedpur whereby and
whereunder the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been
rejected as also the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the
Criminal Revision No.181 of 2025 has been dismissed, is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioner.
17. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 05 of November, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 06/11/2026
9
Cr. M.P. No.2943 of 2026