1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the Complaint Case no. 2406 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 29.04.2014 passed by learned JMFC, Dhanabd by which, learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420, 323, 341, 506 of the IPC inter alia against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he approached the complainant for giving Rs. 4,00,000/- for arranging a job of supervisor for the complainant in HEC. The complainant paid Rs. 3,35,000/- but the petitioner did not arrange any employment for the complainant and when the complainant demanded his money back, the petitioner abused the complainant and scuffled with him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of the Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. the State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:1986 and submits that in that this Court 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) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the deception must be played at the very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Dalip Kaur and Others v. Jagnar Singh and Another, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, paragraph 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 accused persons by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied on the judgment of this court in the case of Ram Binod Choudhary and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2026:JHHC:221 wherein this court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2022) 14 SCC 572 wherein in paragraph-44, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the innumerable instances, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case, in contrast to a civil dispute and such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, which must be discouraged in its entirety.

7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no chit of paper to show any entrustment of money to the petitioner and the dispute between the parties, is at best, a civil dispute and there is no allegation against the petitioner of causing pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant, hence, the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is not made out. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of wrongfully restraining of the informant or anyone else, hence, the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC is also not made out. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner has caused alarm in the mind of the informant, the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is not made out.

8. It is next submitted that as none of the offences in respect of which, learned Magistrate found prima facie is made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

9. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the O.P.No. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be in their entirety then all the offences in respect of which learned Magistrate, has found prima facie case is made out. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.

10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through 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 Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra) that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the very beginning of the transaction between the parties . Now coming to the facts of the case there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the very inception and in the absence of the same, even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety is still, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out.

11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner of causing pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant or anyone else and in the absence of the same and by merely saying that the petitioner scuffled with the complainant, itself will not make out the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is not made out.

12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of causing wrongful restraint to the complainant and this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, is not made out.

13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, is concerned, it is pertinent to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph no. 25 of which reads as under :-

                  25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following:

                  “… The prosecution must prove:

                  (i) That the accused threatened some person.

                  (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested;

                  (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.”

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.”

                  Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Now coming to the facts of this case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner threatened the complainant to keep his mouth shut, if he wants his welfare. In view of the principle of law discussed above in the considered opinion of this Court, such allegation is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC.

14. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found out against the petitioner is made out, even if the entire allegation considered to be true in their entirety, this Court 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 Complaint Case no. 2406 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 29.04.2014 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, the Complaint Case no. 2406 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 29.04.2014 is quashed and set aside against the petitioner.

16. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.