BHUPJEET KUMAR RAWANI vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
[2026:JHHC:32336]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.115 of 2026
------
1. Bhupjeet Kumar Rawani, aged about 48 years,
2. Arbind Kumar @ Arvind Kumar, aged about 38 years;
Both are sons of Mohan Singh, residence of Village:- Romi,
Bangla, P.O:- Surajpura, P.S:- Padma O.P., District –
Hazaribag.
… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Satendra Kumar Sinha, son of Late Laxman Prasad,
resident of Village – Itkhori Chatti, P.O. & P.S. – Itkhori,
District- Chatra, presently resident of – Flat No. 104, D-
Block, Officers Colony near Jain Hospital, Ranipokhar,
P.O.- Ranipokhar, P.S. – Sector – 8/C, District – Bokaro.
…
Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Pinki Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:-
I.A. No. 15683 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
1 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition.
3. Since the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is being
taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of
being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Cr.M.P. No.115 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal
proceedings including the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the leaned
st
Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 318 of 2024
st
whereby and where the leaned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Bokaro has
found sufficient ground to proceed inter alia against the petitioners for
having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468
& 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the father of the
petitioners entered into an agreement for sale of a land with the wife of
the complainant. According to which, the wife of the complainant was
to sell her house along with 10 decimals of land for a consideration
amount of Rs.61,00,000/-. The father of the petitioners paid
Rs.44,89,000/- by way of Demand Draft to the wife of the complainant
2 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
and Rs.11,000/- towards advance amount but the petitioners did not
pay the rest amount. The sale deed was executed by the wife of the
complainant in respect of only eight decimals of land. The father of the
petitioners did not pay the consideration amount in respect of the
remaining 2.25 decimals of land nor the sale deed was executed by the
wife of the complainant, in respect of the said 2.25 decimals of land. It is
further alleged that the petitioners have encroached upon 2.25 decimals
of land of the informant illegally and the father of the petitioner No.1
has entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner No.1 wrongly.
The only allegation against the petitioner No.2 is that the petitioner
No.2 along with the petitioner No.1 were the witnesses of the
agreement entered into between the father of the petitioners and the
wife of the complainant.
4. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant
on the solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses,
st
the leaned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Bokaro found sufficient
grounds to proceed inter alia against the petitioners for having
committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court
towards Annexure-5 from page No.53 to 57 of this petition and submits
that for the self-same allegation, the wife of the complainant during her
lifetime, filed Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2015 in the court of the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. In which case, the
3 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro found prima facie
case against the accused persons of that complaint, including the
petitioner no.1 of this case, in respect of the offences punishable under
Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code but a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 318 of 2017 with Cr.M.P. No. 2221 of 2017 vide
its common order dated 18.09.2019, quashed the said order taking
cognizance passed in Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2015. It is next
submitted that for the self-same allegation, after the death of the wife of
the complainant, the complainant has filed a separate case which is not
sustainable in law. It is then submitted that the allegations against the
petitioners are false. It is also submitted that the complainant himself
filed Complaint Case No. 430 of 2017 on the same set of allegations;
which upon being referred to police, Sector-4 P.S. Case No. 141 of 2017
was registered but after investigation of the case, police submitted Final
Form showing therein lack of evidence and this is the third journey of
the complainant for the self-same occurrence. It is next submitted that
the wife of the complainant also filed Original (Title) Suit No. 120 of
2018 for the self-same land; which is still pending in the court of the
Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Hazaribagh. It is further submitted that
parallel civil and criminal cases have been filed one after another to
harass the petitioners and the complaint has been filed suppressing the
fact that the father of the petitioners namely Mohan Singh has died on
19.12.2023 before filing of the complaint case and such suppression of
4 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
fact resulted in summoning order having been passed against the dead
person namely Mohan Singh.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Vameshwar Prasad Singh vs. The State of
Jharkhand reported in 2026:JHHC:1679 and passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1172
of 2023 dated 21.01.2026 and submits that therein, this Court relied
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 wherein, it has been mentioned that in the facts of that case where
the dispute between the parties was a civil dispute and it was tried to be
converted into a criminal dispute, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
was of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against
the accused will be an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the
petitioners next submits that in the facts of that case, this Court also
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 No.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)
5 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the
settled principle of law that if the dispute between the parties was
essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part
of the accused persons by non-refunding the amount of advance, the
same would not constitute an offence of cheating.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the
Neelima
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Singh @ Neelima Kumari vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in
2026:JHHC:426 and submits that in the facts of 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 & Another
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 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
6 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
the very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on,
the same cannot amount to cheating.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that even if the
entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true
in their entirety, still none of the offences punishable under Sections
420, 467, 468 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the
learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand
vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition and submit that if the entire allegations made
against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then
all the offences in respect of which sufficient ground has been found out
st
by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Bokaro to proceed inter alia
against the petitioners, is in fact, being made out against the petitioners.
Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, 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, so far as
the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:-
7 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
(a) Deceit, that is to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation,
and
(b) Inducing the person 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 .
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against
the petitioners of either deceiving or inducing the wife of the
complainant or the complainant to part with any property nor they
have parted with any property and in the absence of the same, this
Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made
against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal is not made
out against the petitioners.
12. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 467 & 468 of the
Indian Penal Code are concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute
the said offences is ‘forgery’. The essential ingredients to constitute the
offence of forgery punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal
Code are:-
(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.
8 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Indian Bank vs. Satyam reported in (1996) 5 SCC 550.
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of making any false document as
defined under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. The only allegation
against the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners though agreed
to purchase 10.25 decimals of land but purchased only eight decimals of
land but did not purchase the remaining 2.25 decimals of land, which
he was supposed to purchase, in terms of the said agreement.
14. It is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R.
Jawaharaj reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581 that making of a document is
different than causing it to be made as explanation 2 to Section 464 of
the Indian Penal Code further clarifies that for constituting the offence
under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, it is imperative that a false
document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same;
otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of making any false document. In the
absence of any direct allegation of this essential ingredient to constitute
the offence of forgery, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even
if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to
be true in their entirety, still the offence of forgery is not made out
against the petitioners and in the absence of the offence of forgery,
9 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
certainly the offence punishable under Sections 467 & 468 of the Indian
Penal Code cannot be made out against the petitioners; even with the
aid of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
16. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in
respect of which sufficient ground has been found out by the learned
st
Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Bokaro to proceed inter alia against the
petitioners, is made out and also considering the facts that for the self-
same allegation, though cognizance of the offences punishable under
Section 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken in connection with
Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2015 vide order dated 18.09.2019 passed in
Cr.M.P. No. 318 of 2017 with Cr.M.P. No. 2221 of 2017, but the same
have already been quashed by the coordinate bench of this court, as
already indicated above, in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the
criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of
process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal
proceedings including the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned
st
Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 318 of 2024,
be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above.
17. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order
st
dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class,
Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 318 of 2024, is quashed and set aside
against the petitioners named above.
10 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:32336]
18. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to
the aforesaid extent.
19. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition,
pending interlocutory application No.4140 of 2026 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 04 of November, 2026
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 05/11/2026
11 Cr. M.P. No.115 of 2026