Jharkhand High Court
Shri Gopi Krishna Chaubey @ Gopi Krishna … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2026:JHHC:6404]
2023:JHHC:44540
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.34 of 2023
------
1. Shri Gopi Krishna Chaubey @ Gopi Krishna Chaube, S/o
Gopal Chaubey, Aged about 62 Years, Near New Bank Colony
Steel Gate Saraidhela, P.O. + P.S. Saraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad,
Jharkhand 828127
2. Shri Niraj Chaubey @ Niraj Chaube, S/o Gopi Krishna
Chaubey, Aged about 39 Years, KIDZEE School, New Bank
Colony Steel Gate Saraidhela, P.O. + P.S. Saraidhela, Dist-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand 828127.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ajay Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Devendra Prasad Verma age
about 38 years, Kothi O.B.C., Shakim, Sonar Bast, Bastakola,
P.O. & P.S. Jhariya, District Dhanbad, Adhar No. 2349 4157
9824, Mob. No. 7979018828.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Badan Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl,P.P.
For the OP No.2 : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, 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 the order dated 06.01.2020 passed
1 Cr. M.P. No.34 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:6404]
2023:JHHC:44540
by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.
2288 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-
1st Class, Dhanbad has found sufficient materials against the
petitioners to proceed against them for having committed the offences
punishable under Sections 420/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in
furtherance of their common intention, cheated the complainant by
claiming to be the owner of the land of which they, knowing pretty
well that they are not the owner, deceived the complainant by posing
themselves as the owner of the land, induced the complainant to part
with Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners and when the complainant went to
the land concerned, the real owner of the land displayed the
documents of the ownership of the land and when the complainant
demanded the documents of the land of the petitioners, who claimed
themselves to be the owner, the petitioners failed to produce the same
and also did not pay back the cheated amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. On the
basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on the solemn
affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case against
the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420/ 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Ruchika Kakar vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Another passed in Cr.M.P. No. 216 of 2024 dated 8th May, 2024 and
2 Cr. M.P. No.34 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:6404]
2023:JHHC:44540
submits that therein, 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, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of
law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused
person must play deception since the very inception and if the
intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to
cheating.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay
Kumar Ghai & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in
(2022) 7 SCC 124, paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of which read as under:-
“24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G.
Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 513] observed that it is the duty and
obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal
of caution in issuing the process, particularly when
matters are essentially of civil nature.
25. This Court has time and again cautioned about
converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. [Indian Oil Corpn. v.
NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC
(Cri) 188] noticed the prevalent impression that civil
law remedies are time consuming and do not
adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors.
The Court further observed that : (Indian Oil Corpn.
case [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6
SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , SCC p. 749, para
13)
“13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal
offence, by applying pressure through
criminal prosecution should be deprecated
and discouraged.”
3 Cr. M.P. No.34 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:6404]
2023:JHHC:44540
and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
relied upon its own judgment in the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of
U.P. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 wherein it was observed that it is the
duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of
caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are
essentially of civil nature.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that this case is
a case of civil nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits
that the complainant could not produce any document to show the
payment of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners, hence, without any
document, there cannot be a cheating. It is further submitted that the
allegations are inherently improbable. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be
allowed.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition and submit that unlike the facts of the cases
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this is a clear cut
case of out-and-out cheating. It is next submitted that the undisputed
fact remains that the petitioners are not the owner of the land; for
selling of which, they have taken Rs.5,00,000/-. It is then submitted
that since from beginning, the petitioners were very much aware that
they were not the owner of the land to be sold but even then by posing
4 Cr. M.P. No.34 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:6404]
2023:JHHC:44540
themselves as the owner of the land, they have taken Rs.5,00,000/-by
deceiving the complainant and thereby inducing him to part with the
said amount; this goes to show that they played deception from
inception. It is then submitted that the claim of the petitioners that
there is no documentary evidence regarding payment of money to the
petitioners is concerned, it is not a sine qua non that for every money
transaction, there has to be a written document. It is then submitted
that any fact can be proved by oral evidence also.. Hence, it is
submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any
merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court
finds that there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners
that they even though are not the owner of the land concerned, by
playing deception since the very inception, posing themselves to be the
owner of the land have taken Rs.5,00,000/-from the complainant by
inducing him to part with the said money. Thus the conduct of the
petitioners of having deceived the complainant by posing themselves
to be owner of the land; though they themselves were very much
aware that they are not the owners of the land concerned and also
induced the complainant so deceived to part with Rs.5,00,000/- by way
of cheating is sufficient to constitute the offence of cheating. So far as
the contention of the petitioners regarding the absence of any
document to show payment of money to the petitioners, as has been
5 Cr. M.P. No.34 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:6404]
2023:JHHC:44540
rightly submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. and the learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2, it is a settled principle of law that any fact can
be proved by oral evidence also. The contention of the petitioners that
the allegations against them are false is at best the defence of the
petitioners which the petitioner can take during the full-dress trial of
the case but certainly, the same is not a ground to quash the entire
criminal proceedings; as it is also a settled principle of law that no mini
trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of its power under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594,
the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
“Having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482
CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually
conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible
at this stage and while deciding the application under
Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in
a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by
the High Court in exercise of power under Section
482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the
application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court
cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular
case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)”
9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the
petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be
acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
6 Cr. M.P. No.34 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:6404]
2023:JHHC:44540
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being
without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 10th of March, 2026
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 12/03/2026
7 Cr. M.P. No.34 of 2023