TAPAS PAL vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
( 2026:JHHC:14389 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 82 of 2023
Tapas Pal, S/o Late Narayan Chandra Pal, aged 39 years, R/o
Bhadodih, P.O. –Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District -Koderma.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Brahmadev Yadav, S/o Late Tekan Mahto @ Tekan Yadav, R/o
Village –Harila, P.O. & P.S. –Barhi, District –Hazaribagh.
…. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Saurabh Narayan, 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 prosecution of the Complaint
Case No. 243 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated
28.06.2022 and order of framing of charge dated 19.11.2025, passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection
with the said Complaint Case No. 243 of 2022.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner
entered into an agreement for sale of his property to the
1
Cr.M.P. No.82 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:14389 )
complainant and took an advance of Rs.20,00,000/- and it was
agreed to between the parties that the remaining consideration
amount of Rs.60,00,000/- will be paid at the time of registration of
the property but later on the petitioner entered into an agreement
with a third party to sell his land for Rs.90,00,000/- and when the
complainant insisted for registration of the land in his name, the
petitioner abused and threatened the complainant. On the basis of
the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn
affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma found prima facie case for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 & 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and framed charges for the said offences.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as
yet no witness has been examined in this case. Relying upon the
Judgment of this Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Anr . reported in 2025:JHHC:15953 , it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that
case, this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , reported in (2024)
10 SCC 690 , paragraph no.43 of which reads as under:-
“43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust
and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary
at the time of making a false or misleading representation
i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof
of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach
of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the
property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same.
2
Cr.M.P. No.82 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:14389 )
Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or
dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver
any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot
co-exist simultaneously.” (Emphasis supplied)
Wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that both the offences punishable under Section 420 and 406 of the
Indian Penal Code cannot co-exist simultaneously.
5. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon
the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Rikhab Birani and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another , reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 823 , para -18 of which
reads as under:-
“18. In Kunti v. State of Uttar Pradesh11, this Court
referred to Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab12 wherein it
was observed that a breach of contract does not give rise to
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep a
promise will not be enough to initiate criminal
proceedings. Thus, the dishonest intention on the part of
the party who is alleged to have committed the offence of
cheating should be established at the time of entering into
the transaction with the complainant, otherwise the
offence of cheating is not established or made out.”
(Emphasis supplied)
And submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
has also reiterated the settled principle of law that merely the
allegation of failure to keep a promise will not be enough to
initiate criminal proceeding.
6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered
to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under
Section 420 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is
3
Cr.M.P. No.82 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:14389 )
next submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the
petitioner that the petitioner intentionally insulted the informant
in such a manner provoking to commit breach of peace or any
other offence, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the
India Penal Code is not made out and in the absence of any
allegation against the petitioner of committing threatening of such
nature with the intent to cause alarm to that person, the offence
punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out. It is then submitted that the allegations against the
petitioner are false. The sale price of the property was agreed to
between the parties at the rate of Rs.1,40,00,000/- only upon the
repayment of bank loan by the petitioner as the same was kept
mortgaged with the bank. It is next submitted that the complaint
has been filed on the basis of fabricated and forged agreement.
The petitioner has received only Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. Hence,
it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in
this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the
prayer of the petitioner and submit that the materials in the record
are sufficient to constitute each of the offences for which charges
have been framed against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted
that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit
be dismissed.
4
Cr.M.P. No.82 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:14389 )
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 , para-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 accused person by the complainant and merely
because the seller is refusing to register the sale, it does not
amount to misappropriation of the advance amount paid.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that even if the entire allegation made against the
petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable
under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out
against the petitioner.
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been
5
Cr.M.P. No.82 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:14389 )
held by 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 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.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner played
deception since the beginning of the transaction between the
parties. Hence, 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 420
of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
said offence are as under:-
(i) The accused intentionally insulted someone;
6
Cr.M.P. No.82 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:14389 )
(ii) He thereby intended to give him provocation;
(iii) He knew that it was likely that such provocation would
cause that person to commit a breach of peace or to
commit any other offence.
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against
the petitioner is that the petitioner abused the complainant. There
is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner
intentionally insulted the complainant or he thereby gave or
intended to give provocation that would cause the complainant to
commit breach of peace or to commit any other offence and in the
absence of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, even
if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered
to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
said offence are as under:-
(i) the accused threatened someone with injury to his
person, reputation or property or to the person, reputation
or property of another in whom the former was interested.
(ii) the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the
victim of offence.
(iii) the accused did so to cause the victim to perform any
act which he was not legally bound to do.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against
the petitioner is that the petitioner threatened the complainant
7
Cr.M.P. No.82 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:14389 )
with intent to cause alarm to the complainant nor there is any
allegation that the petitioner threatened the complainant to
perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.
16. 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 falls short
from constituting the offence punishable under Section 506 of the
Indian Penal Code.
17. In view of the discussions made above, since none of the
offences in respect of which charges have been framed against the
petitioner is made out, even if the entire allegations made against
the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence,
this Court is of the considered view that continuation of this
criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of
process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire
criminal prosecution being Complaint Case No. 243 of 2022
including the order taking cognizance dated 28.06.2022 and order
of framing of charge dated 19.11.2025, passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with the said
Complaint Case No. 243 of 2022, be quashed and set aside qua the
petitioner.
18. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution being Complaint
Case No. 243 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated
28.06.2022 and order of framing of charge dated 19.11.2025, passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection
8
Cr.M.P. No.82 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:14389 )
with the said Complaint Case No. 243 of 2022, is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioner.
19. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 5 May, 2026
AFR/Sonu-
Uploaded on 18.05.2026
9
Cr.M.P. No.82 of 2023