Hasiban Bibi And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
(2026:JHHC:32068)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1574 of 2017
1. Hasiban Bibi, wife of late Rozan Seikh
2. Sajid Ansari, son of late Rozan Seikh
3. Rashid Ansari, son of late Rozan Seikh
4. Maqsud Ansari, son of Allauddin Ansari
5. Faruq Seikh, son of late Md. Rojan
6. Firoz Khan, son of Reyaz Khan
7. Jahiman Bibi, wife of late Sk. Idu
8. Mausam Khatun, wife of late Hakim Ansari
9. Mokim Ansari, son of late Sk. Idu
10. Mukhtar Ansari, son of late Sk. Idu
11. Mairun Khatun, wife of late Ahmed Hussain
12. Irsad Ansari, son of late Ahmed Hussain
13. Reyasat Ansari, son of late Ajmuddin Ansari
14. Subhan Ansari, son of late Ajmuddin Ansari
15. Sabila Khatun, wife of late Alam Ansari
16. Shamim Ansari, son of Reyasat Ansari
17. Nasim Ansari, son of Reyasat Ansari
18. Md. Shahid Ansari, son of Subhan Ansari
19. Akbar Ansari, son of late Alam Ansari
All resident of Village-Choreya, P.O. & P.S.- Chanho, Dist.-
Ranchi
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mubarak Ansari, son of Md. Sikandar Ansari, resident
Village-Choreya, P.O. & P.S.- Chanho, Dist.-Ranchi
…. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.
1
Cr.M.P. No.1574 of 2017
(2026:JHHC:32068)
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lal C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
: Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate
…..
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal
proceeding including the order dated 05.02.2016 passed
st
by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Ranchi in
connection with Complaint Case No. 1436 of 2014,
st
whereby and where under, learned Judicial Magistrate 1
Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case of the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code and passed the summoning order.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners that the case is next fixed on
08.01.2027 for appearance of the accused persons and
charge has not yet been framed in this case.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the
petitioners being the co-parceners of the place of
occurrence land, restrained the complainant from digging
the place of occurrence land for constructing of plinth for
a house. It is further submitted that in paragraph no.4 of
the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant;
the complainant himself admitted that the petitioners has
2
Cr.M.P. No.1574 of 2017
(2026:JHHC:32068)
share over the place of occurrence land but they do not
have any right to sell the same alone.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in the
case of Satyendra Nath Tiwari vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2026:JHHC:183 and
submits that in that case, this Court 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 no.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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to
constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play
deception since the beginning of the transaction between
the parties and if the intention to cheat has developed
later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.
3
Cr.M.P. No.1574 of 2017
(2026:JHHC:32068)
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West
Bengal & Anr. in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5866 of 2022 dated
30.01.2023 wherein in the facts of that case, where the
respondent has already approached the jurisdictional civil
court by instituting a civil suit and it was pending, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that there can be no
doubt with respect to the fact that attempt on the part of
the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as
weapon of harassment against the appellants. It is further
submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioners by drawing attention of this Court to the
plaint of Title Suit No. 47 of 2015 of the court of Sub-
Ordinate Judge-I, Ranchi, that the father of the
complainant along with others filed the said title suit
against the petitioners and the dispute between the parties
is at best a civil dispute but a cloak of criminal case has
been given to a purely civil dispute for the purpose of
wreaking vengeance. It is then submitted by the learned
Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that in the
absence of any material to suggest that the petitioners
have deceived the complainant or having induced him to
part with any property, the offence punishable under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and
4
Cr.M.P. No.1574 of 2017
(2026:JHHC:32068)
in the absence of any false document, the offence
punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code is
also not made out even with the aid of Section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer
as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
7. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that if
the entire allegations made against the petitioners,
statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and
the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be
true in its entirety, then all the offences in respect of which
prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial
st
Magistrate 1 Class, Ranchi is in fact made out against the
petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
8. 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
essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:-
(i) deceit, that is to say dishonest or fraudulent
misrepresentation, and
5
Cr.M.P. No.1574 of 2017
(2026:JHHC:32068)
(ii) Inducing the person so deceived to part with
property;
as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641 .
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is
absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of inducing
any person to part with any property and in the absence
of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even
if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in its entirety, still, the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is
not made out against any of the petitioners even with the
aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 465 of
the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential
ingredients to constitute the said are as under: -
(i) The accused prepared a false document or
electronic record;
(ii) He did it with false meaning of written
instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit
(iii) The document or electronic record was
prepared dishonestly or fraudulently;
(iv) He did it with the intention of causing
wrongful gain to someone and wrongful loss to
another
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is
absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of
preparing any false document or electronic record.
Claiming of the entire land by a co-parcener and selling
6
Cr.M.P. No.1574 of 2017
(2026:JHHC:32068)
the same to a third person precludes all other persons
except the person to whom property has been sold to
institute any criminal case as has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors.
Versus State of Bihar & Anr. reported in ( 2009) 8 SCC
751 .
12. Further, there is absolutely no allegation against the
petitioners of making any specific false document and in
the absence of any such allegation, certainly, the
allegations made in the complaint are insufficient to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 465 of the
Indian Penal Code even with the aid of Section 120 B of
the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
13. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is
of the considered view that continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of
process of law and therefore, this is a fit case where the
entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
st
05.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1
Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1436
of 2014 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding
including the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the
st
learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Ranchi in connection
7
Cr.M.P. No.1574 of 2017
(2026:JHHC:32068)
with Complaint Case No. 1436 of 2014 is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioners.
15. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is
allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
nd
Dated the 2 November, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 03/11/2026
8
Cr.M.P. No.1574 of 2017