Jharkhand High Court
Shah Irafad Equbal vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 23 July, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2026:JHHC:21809]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2026
------
1. Shah Irafad Equbal, aged about 41 years, son of Late Shah
Halim Equbal @ Sona.
2. Shah Imran Eqbal, aged about 39 years, son of Late Shah
Halim Equbal @ Sona.
Both are residents of House No. 5/A, Ward No. 24, Iqbal
House, Upper Bilasi Town, Kothiya, P.O. – B. Degohar, P.S.
Deoghar (Town), District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Prathik, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
——
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 557 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2) and 318 (2)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the father of the petitioner No.1
and 2 along with three other persons took Rs.1,31,250/- from the
1 Cr. M.P. No.307 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:21809]
informant for selling their land but since there was a suit pending in
respect of the property to be sold and there was an injunction order, the
father of the petitioners and other persons could not sell the said land to
the informant but the petitioners are not executing the sale deed, in
respect of which money has been taken by their predecessor-in-interest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations
against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted that there is no
allegation against of the petitioners of playing deception since the
beginning of the transaction between the parties and in the absence of
the same, neither the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 nor the offence punishable under Section
318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against any of
the petitioners. It is further submitted that the same prayer of the co-
accused has already been allowed by this Court vide judgment dated
19th February, 2026 passed in Cr.M.P. No.367 of 2026. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel
for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of
the petitioners and submit that in view of the allegations made against
the petitioners, both the offences in respect of which F.I.R has been
registered, is made out against the petitioners; therefore, at this nascent
stage, the same ought not to be quashed. Hence, it is submitted that this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit be dismissed.
2 Cr. M.P. No.307 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:21809]
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, so far as the offence
punishable under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is
concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:-
(i) There must be an entrustment and,
(ii) There must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own
use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal
contract.
as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641, of course, in relation to the offence
punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code which
corresponds to Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that as has been held by 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 paragraph-12 of which reads as under:-
“12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with
any property by respondent no. 2 – complainant. The only delivery
made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between
the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said
to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2.
Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register
the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance
payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence
of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach
of trust cannot be said to be made out.” (Emphasis supplied)wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the
amount paid towards consideration, cannot be said to have been
entrusted to the accused persons by the complainant and merely
3 Cr. M.P. No.307 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:21809]because the accused persons are refusing to register the sale, it does not
amount to misappropriation of the advance amount paid.
8. Further, in the case of Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh reported
in (2005) 13 SCC 699, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated
the settled principle of law that merely because an agreement to sell
was entered into and which agreement, the accused person of the case
failed to honour, it cannot be said that the seller has cheated the
complainant and no case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out; para-6 of the said judgment
reads as under:-
“6. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint and
the orders of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.
Having taken into consideration all the material made available on
record by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, we are satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated by
the respondent against the petitioner are wholly unwarranted. The
complaint is an abuse of the process of the court and the
proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Even if all the
averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct, yet the
case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal
Code is not made out. The complaint does not make any averment
so as to infer any fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been
made by the petitioner pursuant to which the respondent parted
with the money. It is not the case of the respondent that the
petitioner does not have the property or that the petitioner was not
competent to enter into an agreement to sell or could not have
transferred title in the property to the respondent. Merely because
an agreement to sell was entered into which agreement the
petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be said that the petitioner has
cheated the respondent. No case for prosecution under Section 420
or Section 406 IPC is made out even prima facie. The complaint
filed by the respondent and that too at Madhepura against the
petitioner, who is a resident of Delhi, seems to be an attempt to
pressurise the petitioner for coming to terms with the respondent.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. In the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Another
reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
deprecated the trend of converting civil dispute into criminal case and
4 Cr. M.P. No.307 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:21809]putting pressure upon the accused person of the case for returning the
amount.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur &
Others vs. Jagnar Singh & 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)
has reiterated the settled principle of law that if the dispute
between the parties is essentially a civil dispute resulting from the
breach of contract on the part of the accused person by non-refunding
the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of
cheating.
11. Under such circumstances, 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 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is not made out
against the petitioners.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 318(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is concerned, it is a settled principle of
law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
5 Cr. M.P. No.307 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:21809]
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)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.
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, the deception, if any, is
alleged against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who has
since been deceased. There is no allegation against the petitioners of
playing any role at the time of initial transaction between the informant
and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as well as others.
14. Under such circumstances, 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 same is insufficient to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 318(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioners.
15. In view of the discussions made above, since neither of the
offences in respect of which F.I.R has been registered, is made out
against the petitioners, hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding
against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law.
Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising
6 Cr. M.P. No.307 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:21809]
out of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 557 of 2025 be quashed and set
aside against the petitioners named above.
16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 557 of 2025 is quashed and set aside
against the petitioners named above.
17. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
18. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition,
pending I.A. No. 2859 of 2026 stands disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd of July, 2026
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 27/07/2026
7 Cr. M.P. No.307 of 2026
