Jharkhand High Court
G. Eswara Rao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:6148 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2023
------
G. Eswara Rao, aged 69 years, son of China Sanyasi Raju, resident of
Kanchara Street, Rajam, P.O. & P.S.-Rajam, Dist.- Srikakulam
(Andhra Pradesh).
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. M/s. Adhunik Fuels Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Director Vijay
Kumar Lohariwal, son of Sri Om Prakash Lohariwal, residing at
Urmila Tower, Bank More, P.O. & P.S.-Bank More, Dhanbad, Dist.-
Dhanbad.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
: Mr. Avilash Kumar, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal
proceeding as well as FIR of Govindpur P.S. Case No.67 of 2018
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1070 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case
No.2987 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.
1 Cr. M.P. No.827 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:6148 )
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of
the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in
this case.
4. The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner claiming
himself to be the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s Vasavi
Industries Ltd. approached the complainant for the purchase of coke on
credit basis and made part payment of the coke supplied by paying small
fractional amounts and an amount of Rs.1,04,36,479/- was due and
payable against the petitioner and the co-accused persons which they
were supposed to pay between July, 2014 to September, 2014 and though
the co-accused persons issued five cheques in discharge of the said debt,
but all the cheques were dishonored. A separate complaint case has been
instituted in respect of the dishonor of cheques. There is further allegation
that the accused persons of the case visited the office of the complainant
and demanded further quantity of coke for their company as well as
another company namely Mynah Industries Limited on false payment
assurance and the complainant further on 23.11.2014 supplied coke to
Mynah Industries Limited as well as M/s Vasavi Industries Ltd. and a
sum of Rs.1,02,20,665/- became due against the petitioners and
Rs.6,50,254/- become due and payable by the Mynah Industries Limited,
but the accused persons of the case did not pay the said amount.
5. The complainant filed Complaint Case No.2987 of 2015 in the Court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad which upon being referred
to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.; police registered Govindpur P.S.
2 Cr. M.P. No.827 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:6148 )
Case No.67 of 2018 and took up investigation of the case which is going
on at present.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.W. Palanitkar & Others
vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 and submits
that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-21 held that a
mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an
act leading to cheating.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V.
Prasad & Others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 and submits that therein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 415 has two parts;
while in the first part, the person must “dishonestly” or “fraudulently”
induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the
person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a
thing.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in this case, the
alleged transaction took place in connection with a commercial
transaction between the parties and undisputedly the amount due has
already been paid by way of cheques, but it is the case of the complainant
that the cheques have been dishonored, but admittedly the cheques were
not issued by the complainant and the complainant/opposite party no.2
claims that he has instituted separate complaint case in respect of
3 Cr. M.P. No.827 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:6148 )
dishonour of cheques, so in view of the admitted fact, no offence
punishable under Section 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this is a case
which is purely of civil in nature, but a cloak of criminal case has been
given to the civil dispute for the purpose of wreaking vengeance against
the petitioner, hence, the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this
Cr.M.P., be allowed.
10. 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 petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the allegation
made in the FIR is sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable
under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is
submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
11. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash
Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that when the
dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute, nonpayment or
under-payment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to
commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains
that the petitioner in capacity of Chairman-cum-Managing Director of a
4 Cr. M.P. No.827 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:6148 )
company approached the complainant for supply of coke. Admittedly,
some part payment of the coke supplied has been received by the
complainant and for the rest of the amount, the authorized signatories of
the company concerned have issued five cheques which were
dishonoured and for which separate complaint case has been instituted by
the complainant/opposite party no.2.
13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
at best, it is a case of under payment of the goods supplied and the same
by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section
406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code ; the same having been taken place in
respect of the commercial transaction and the price of goods has already
been paid by the concerned persons by way of cheques, more so, even
after the dishonour of cheques, some more coke has been supplied by the
complainant. Basically, this is a case of civil dispute being given a cloak of
a criminal case for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. Hence, this Court
is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding
against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a
fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as FIR of Govindpur
P.S. Case No.67 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1070 of 2018
arising out of Complaint Case No.2987 of 2015 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed
and set aside.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as FIR of
Govindpur P.S. Case No.67 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1070 of
5 Cr. M.P. No.827 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:6148 )
2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.2987 of 2015 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, is
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
16. In view of disposal of this Cr.M.P., the I.A. No.1529 of 2026 is
disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 09th of March, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 11/03/2026
6 Cr. M.P. No.827 of 2023