1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered as Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.459 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 being the Chairman, petitioner No.2 being the then Chief Executive Officer and the petitioner No.3 being the present Chief Executive Officer of Mithila Grih Nirman Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, VI of 1935, sold two pieces of land to the informant on behalf of the said society; one measuring five (5) decimals and the other measuring 3.5 decimals. The undisputed fact remains that consequent upon the sale of the land, correction slip in respect of the land, has also been made in the revenue records, the copy of which has been kept at page-48 of the brief which is also the part of the F.I.R. It is the claim of the informant that the petitioners have sold a land other than the land in respect of which sale-deed has been executed but it is the admitted case of the informant that both the lands are adjacent to each other. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.459 of 2020 and took up the investigation of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies 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 that at 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have sold a piece of land adjacent to another land which they were supposed to sale. There is no material in the record to show that the land sold is at any disadvantage than the land which was supposed to be sold. It is further submitted that it may be at best a civil dispute but no way the offence punishable under any of the penal provisions of law, is made out.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Chand Bagri vs. Jagadish Prasad Bagri & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2529 wherein in the facts of that case where the complainant omitted to aver as to how the property entrusted to the accused, was dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that no offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and submits that in this case also, there is no allegation against any of the petitioners of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of 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 and submits that in para-11 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has mentioned the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Ram @ Rajesh Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2020 reported in 2025:JHHC:37108 wherein 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)

                  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.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the said judgment, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraph-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 the Indian Penal Code.

11. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioners played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and in the absence of any allegation that the threat was given to cause alarm to the informant or to cause the informant to do any act which she was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which she was legally entitled to do; as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out.

12. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant herself claims that she has already constructed the house over the land so she could not have any grievance. It is lastly submitted that the F.I.R is based on a measurement made by the Circle Officer on a private land and drawing attention of this Court towards the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.399 of 2023 reported in 2024:JHHC:40133-DB, submits that therein the Division Bench of this Court held that the learned Single Judge had erred in giving a finding that Circle Officers are having the necessary power and jurisdiction to carry out demarcation of private properties upon filing of an application by one or the other concerned party on payment of requisite fee and such finding given by the learned Single Judge in that case was unnecessary. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

13. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State and 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. but fairly submit that the correction slip issued in the name of the informant kept at page- 48 of the brief, is a genuine one but the Circle Officer has submitted a report to the Investigating Officer of the case that five (5) decimals of plot No.220 under Khata No.7 is a triabal plot and is not a sellable land. Hence, it is submitted that all the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

14. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must have played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties.

15. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception with the informant since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. The undisputed fact remains that the informant has been put in possession and correction slip of the area of the land which the informant purchased, has been given to the informant.

16. Under such circumstances, in the absence of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code that the accused played 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 petitioners 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 petitioners.

17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. In the absence of this essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

18. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners threatened to kill. There is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners that the threatening was made with the intent to cause alarm to the informant or to cause the informant to do any act which she was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which she was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. Moreover, the same appears to be of ornamental in nature in the facts of the case where the dispute is basically a civil dispute.

19. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against either of the petitioners.

20. As none of the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners in respect of Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.459 of 2020, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered as Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.459 of 2020, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above.

21. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered as Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.459 of 2020, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above.

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

23. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted vide order dated 16.11.2022, is vacated.

24. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.