AMIT KUMAR SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
(2026:JHHC:26561)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2006 of 2021
------
1. Amit Kumar Singh, Aged about 33 years, S/O Ram Narayan
Singh
2. Ram Narayan Singh, Aged about 61 Years
Both petitioner nos.1 & 2 resident of Hankerkhap, Jabra, P.O.
Jabra, P.S. Simaria, District Chatra, Jharkhand
3. Praful Ranjan Singh @ Sonu Singh, Aged about 33 Years, S/O
Upendra Singh
4. Monu Singh, Aged about 27 Years, S/O Upendra Singh
Both petitioner nos. 3 & 4 resident of Gram Sohar Kalan,
Panchayat Nagar, P.O. Elda, P.S. Simaria, District Chatra, Jharkhand
… Petitioners
Versus
…
The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishu Ranjan Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. 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 F.I.R. and subsequent
proceeding in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.206 of 2020
including the order dated 12.01.2024 passed in connection with the said
case whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken
1
Cr. M.P. No.2006 of 2021
(2026:JHHC:26561)
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 385, 386,
387/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is next
fixed to 23.11.2026 for appearance and charge has not yet been framed
in the case.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners
approached the informant for transportation of coal for them as was
done by them on behalf of Chhotu Singh earlier and promised to pay
the amount of money towards transportation of the coal but did not pay
the money in total amounting to Rs.1,11,89,616/- and also threatened to
get the informant killed with the help of extremists and told the
informant to forget about the money due and payable by the petitioners
to the informant.
5. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant,
police registered Balumath P.S. Case No.206 of 2020 and took up the
investigation of the case and after investigation of the case, police
submitted charge-sheet; basing upon which the learned Magistrate has
taken cognizance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh @
Shailesh R. Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in 2025
INSC 869 paragraph-10 of which reads as under:-
“ 10 . How many times the High Courts are to be reminded
that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be
something more than prima facie on record to indicate that
the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant
right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does
not disclose any element of criminality.” (Emphasis
2
Cr. M.P. No.2006 of 2021
(2026:JHHC:26561)
supplied)
and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the settled principle of law that to constitute an offence of
cheating, there has to be something more in the record to prima facie
indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant
right from the inception.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Shubhankar Ashutosh Pal vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Another 2026:JHHC:20829 Cr.M.P.
reported in passed in
No.418 of 2025 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir
Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Another reported in
(2007) 7 SCC 373 paragraph-8 of which reads as under:-
“8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a
civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of
the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an
offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence,
having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust
contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to
have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the
Penal Code reads, thus:
“405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in
any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates
or converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in
violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode
in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any
legal contract, express or implied, which he has made
touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully
suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal
breach of trust’.”
Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of
the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any
statement in that behalf has been made. (Emphasis supplied)
3
Cr. M.P. No.2006 of 2021
(2026:JHHC:26561)
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that if
the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute, non-
payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not
amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of
trust.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this
Court in that case further 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-6 of
which reads as under:-
“ 6. Xxxxx 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 has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India 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 cannot
amount to cheating.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Bimal Kuamr Agarwal @ Vimal Kumar
Agarwal @ Vimal Kumar Agawal vs. The State of Jharkhand reported
in 2026:JHHC:15233 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1490 of 2026 wherein this
4
Cr. M.P. No.2006 of 2021
(2026:JHHC:26561)
Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat &
Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 paragraph-11 and 13 of which
reads as under:-
“ 11 . Having observed the background principles applicable
herein, we need to consider the individual charges against
the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406
IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan
transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that
Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant
circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an
admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount,
Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is
still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a
difference between simple payment/investment of money
and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a
promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto,
constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust
contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear
case of entrustment.
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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the
mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give
5
Cr. M.P. No.2006 of 2021
(2026:JHHC:26561)
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 and a mere breach
of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto , constitute the
offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC
without there being a clear case of entrustment.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the absence of
any allegation against the petitioners of putting the informant or any
person in fear of death, grievous hurt or that they did so to induce the
victim/informant to deliver some property, valuable security or
something signed or sealed which could be converted into valuable
security, the offence of extortion is not made out and in the absence of
the offence of extortion, the none of the offences punishable under
Section 385, 386 or 387 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioners.
11. It is next submitted that the alleged occurrence of lifting of coal
took place on 17.06.2019 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.10.2020, so,
there is inordinate delay of more than a year in lodging the F.I.R. It is
further submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the
petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the
offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned
Magistrate, is made out against the petitioners and this is an out and
out case of civil dispute to which a cloak of criminal offence has been
given only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6
Cr. M.P. No.2006 of 2021
(2026:JHHC:26561)
12. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned
counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the
prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. 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 the
cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Latehar, is in fact, made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it is
submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
13. 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 406 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:-
(i) there must be entrustment and
(ii) there must be misappropriation orconversion to one’s own use
or use in violation of a legal direction or obtaining legal
possession;
as has been held 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
.
14. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against
the petitioners of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted
property. The dues of the informant in respect of the work done by him
for transporting the coal for the petitioners can neither be termed as
property ‘entrusted’ as the word ‘entrusted’ has been used in Section
405 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment for which has been
7
Cr. M.P. No.2006 of 2021
(2026:JHHC:26561)
provided in Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor is there any
allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any property. In the
absence of these essential ingredients, 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 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the
petitioners.
15. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said
offence is that the accused person played deception since the beginning
of the transaction between the parties.
16. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the
beginning of the transaction between the parties. In the absence of this
essential ingredient, 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 Code is not made out against the petitioners.
17. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 385, 386 and 387
of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the essential ingredient to
constitute each of such offence is ‘extortion’ and to constitute
‘extortion’, the accused must put the victim or any other person in fear
of death, grievous hurt, to induce the victim to deliver some property,
valuable security or something signed or sealed which could be
converted into valuable security.
8
Cr. M.P. No.2006 of 2021
(2026:JHHC:26561)
18. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is no allegation against
the petitioners of inducing any person to deliver any property to any
person. In the absence this allegation which is essential to constitute the
offence of extortion, the offence of extortion is not made out and in the
absence of offence of extortion, none of the offences punishable under
Sections 385, 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even
with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
19. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in
respect of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, are made
out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against
them are considered to be true in their entirety, therefore, this Court is
of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding
against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence,
this is a fit case where the F.I.R. and subsequent proceeding in
connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.206 of 2020 including the order
dated 12.01.2024 passed in connection with the said case, be quashed
and set aside.
20. Accordingly, the F.I.R. and subsequent proceeding in connection
with Balumath P.S. Case No.206 of 2020 including the order dated
12.01.2024 passed in connection with the said case, are quashed and set
aside qua the petitioners named above.
21. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed to the said extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
nd
Dated the 02 of September, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 07/09/2026
9
Cr. M.P. No.2006 of 2021