RANCHI, India, Jan. 23 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 22:

1. Heard the parties.

2. Since both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed with the selfsame prayer hence, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 5504 of 2023 including the order taking cognizance dated 23.08.2023 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class -XXVI, Ranchi has found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the complainant was supplying materials to the petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 616 of 2024 on being told by the petitioner no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 616 of 2024 and petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 620 of 2024 since the year 2014 and after a long commercial transaction, an amount of Rs.14,62,034/- became payable to the complainant, which the petitioners are not paying.

5. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class -XXVI, Ranchi vide order dated 23.08.2023 found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code as already indicated above.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of this Court dated 03.07.2024, in the case of Pramod Bharat Sarawale @ Pramod Bharat Sarwale Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 2606 of 2023 wherein this Court relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360, para-13 of which reads as under:-

"13. 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 up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqHFeLMJNDsnCn7p%2Bg6zoxIlyJovsPederaE2d6rqWu%2FV&caseno=Cr.M.P./616/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010070642024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.