By the Court:

1. Heard the parties.

2. Since, both these cases have been filed with the same prayer arising out the same case, hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the same prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.2800 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

4. The allegation against the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.1776 of 2020 namely Krishna Kumar Marandi @ Krishna Marandi is that he being the Circle Officer, Nirsa and the petitioner of Cr.M.P No.2713 of 2019 being the Block Development Officer, Kaliasol in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons; without any no objection certificate furnished by the villagers concerned got constructed one Anganbari Kendra, Kara Patthar, Rai Tola in a place near the School instead of constructing the same at the identified place over plot no.505, Khata No.17, Mauza No.183, Kharapathar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the charge has not yet been framed in this case and the case is next fixed on 16.01.2026 for evidence before charge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 and submits that therein it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the FIR cannot be maintained under both the Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as the ingredients of both the sections are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramdhan Mahto & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2025: JHHC: 30990 submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, para 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)

                  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 appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in that case, this Court also 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. “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 unless the accused persons play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that there is absolutely no allegation of any entrustment of any property to either of the petitioners and in the absence of the same and further in the absence of any dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submit that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of by dishonest or fraudulent manner making any person deceived to part with any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that both the petitioners are public servants and no sanction for prosecution has been obtained even though the alleged occurrence took place while they were discharging their official duties, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

12. Learned Spl.P.P. and the learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety then both the offences punishable under Section 406 as well as the Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the allegation against the co-accused no.8-Mukhiya of having forged the signatures of the villagers, but the learned Magistrate has not found prima facie case in respect of any offence of forgery, but regarding the same, the opposite party no.2 has no grievance as he has not challenged the said order. It is lastly 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, it is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of being entrusted with any property or money and in the absence of this essential ingredient and in the absence of further essential ingredient of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of deceiving anybody or making any person deceived to part with any property etc. and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

15. In view of the discussions made above as neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, even if they entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, 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 and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.2800 of 2018, be quashed and set aside.

16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.2800 of 2018, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

17. In the result, these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed.