A sale dispute without initial deception or entrustment does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust.

The petitioner approached the Jharkhand High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from Ratu P.S. Case No. 303 of 2024, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(3) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The informant alleged that the petitioner received ₹27,01,000 from him and his wife, arranged execution of a sale deed for raiyati land, but delivered possession of a different gair majaruwa land

Investigation was pending and no charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioner

Whether the allegations disclosed the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 316(2) of the BNS, particularly entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion?

Whether the allegations disclosed cheating under Section 318(4) of the BNS in the absence of an allegation that the petitioner intended to deceive the informant from the inception of the transaction?

Whether continuation of the FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to prevent abuse of process.

For criminal breach of trust under Section 316(2) of the BNS, the prosecution must establish entrustment of property and subsequent dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or use in violation of a legal direction, as explained in Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Relying on Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that money paid as consideration under an agreement or sale transaction is not, by itself, entrusted property, and refusal or failure to complete the transaction does not constitute misappropriation absent entrustment

For cheating under Section 318(4) of the BNS, corresponding to Section 420 IPC, deception and fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist from the inception of the transaction; a subsequent breach or development of dishonest intention is insufficient, as held in Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar

The Court found no allegation that the ₹27,01,000 was entrusted to the petitioner in a fiduciary or legally recognised sense; it was paid as consideration for the land transaction. Consequently, the essential elements of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation under Section 316(2) were absent

Although the sale deed was executed in favour of the informant, the allegation was that possession of a different gair majaruwa land was delivered. The Court held that this circumstance, without a specific allegation that the petitioner had a deceptive or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, did not satisfy the ingredients of cheating under Section 318(4)

On the allegations as pleaded, the dispute therefore did not disclose the requisite ingredients of the charged offences, and continuation of the prosecution would constitute abuse of process

The FIR and the entire criminal proceeding in Ratu P.S. Case No. 303 of 2024 were accordingly quashed and set aside insofar as they related to Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed