SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court




(2026:JHHC:26284)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2683 of 2026
------
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, aged about 42 years, S/o Ram Kailash
Prasad, R/o At- Jublle Chowk, Tapakhas, Ward No.9, Latehar, PO &
PS- Latehar, District- Latehar, State- Jharkhand
… Petitioner
Versus
…
The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party

------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
(Through V.C.)
------
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 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the
prayer to quash the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in
connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.303 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(3) and 318(4) of the
B.N.S., 2023 and the said case is now pending in the court of learned
J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation
of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted
against the petitioner.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took
Rs.27,01,000/- from the informant and his wife and got a Raiyati land
1
Cr. M.P. No.2683 of 2026




(2026:JHHC:26284)


sold in their name but gave possession in respect of a different and
separate Gair Majaruwa land.
5. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant,
police registered Ratu P.S. Case No.303 of 2024 and took up the
investigation of the case which is still going on at present.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation
against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that even if the entire
allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their
entirety, still no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is further
submitted that there is no document in respect of entrustment of any
money to the petitioner. It is also submitted that admittedly, a sale-deed
has been executed in favour of the informant by Suresh Ray so, the
informant can take the possession of the land sold to him. It is further
submitted that there is neither any allegation against the petitioner of
entrustment of any property nor is there any allegation of committing
any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property by the
petitioner. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation
against the petitioner that he played deception since the beginning of
the transaction between the parties, the offence punishable under
Section 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies 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 . 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
2
Cr. M.P. No.2683 of 2026




(2026:JHHC:26284)


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)

Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this
Cr.M.P., be allowed.
8. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P. and submits that if the entire allegations made against the
petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, then all the
offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered, are made out
against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage,
the entire criminal proceeding ought not be quashed. Therefore, it is
submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
9. 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 the admitted case of the informant
that the petitioner got one sale-deed executed after taking money from
the informant in respect of Raiyati land but gave possession of some
other land which is a Gair Majaruwa land.
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the
B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said
offence are that there must be an entrustment and there must be
misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of
a legal direction or obtaining legal possession; as has been held by the
3
Cr. M.P. No.2683 of 2026




(2026:JHHC:26284)


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 absolutely no
allegation of any entrustment of any money because it is a settled
principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan &
India in the case of
Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 paragraph-12 of which
reads as under:-
“ 12 . In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with
any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery
made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between
the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said
to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2.
Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register
the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance
payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence
of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach
of trust cannot be said to be made out.” (Emphasis supplied)

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the
amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been
entrusted with the seller. Thus, in the absence of this essential
ingredient of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation of any
entrusted property, 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 offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the
B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner.

12. So, far as the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the
B.N.S., 2023 which corresponds to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
is concerned; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
4
Cr. M.P. No.2683 of 2026




(2026:JHHC:26284)


in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another
(supra) that unless the accused played deception since the beginning of
the transaction between the parties, the offence of cheating will not be
made out.
13. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the
beginning of the transaction between the parties rather it is the
admitted case of the informant that the petitioner got a sale-deed
executed in favour of the informant albeit not for the land, the
possession of which was given to the informant. In the absence of any
allegation against the petitioner of playing any deception since the
beginning of the transaction between the parties, 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 offence
punishable under Section 318(2) or 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made
out against the petitioner.
14. In view of the discussions made above as none of the offences in
respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered, is made out against the
petitioner, therefore, 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, hence, this is a fit case where the
F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ratu P.S.
Case No.303 of 2024 which is now pending in the court of learned
J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner
named above.
5
Cr. M.P. No.2683 of 2026




(2026:JHHC:26284)



15. Accordingly, the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in
connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.303 of 2024 which is now pending in
the court of learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside qua
the petitioner named above.
16. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
st
Dated the 01 of September, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 02/09/2026
6
Cr. M.P. No.2683 of 2026