Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 8 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Sanjeev Modi, aged about 53, son of late Meghraj Modi, resident of E‑2, Lake Palace, Lake Avenue, Kanke Road, Ranchi.
  • Opposite Parties: (1) The State of Jharkhand; (2) Usha Modi, wife of Shri Gopal Modi, resident of Belair Apartment, Hindpiri, Ranchi.
  • Nature of Petition: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2023) filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quash of the entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class‑VIII, Ranchi in Protest‑cum‑Complaint Case No. 4281 of 2022, which alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Allegations: The complainant alleged that the petitioner, being the brother‑in‑law of the complainant, entered into an agreement with JHARCRAFT for 6,205 sq. ft. of property while only 4,935 sq. ft. was allotted to him in the mutual petition.
  • Procedural History:
  • Complaint Case No. 268 of 2020 filed by the complainant, referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; police registered Chutia P.S. Case No. 53 of 2020, investigated, and submitted a final report stating the dispute was civil and did not recommend prosecution.
  • The complainant subsequently filed Protest‑cum‑Complaint Case No. 4281 of 2022; based on the protest‑cum‑complaint, the complainant’s solemn affirmation, and inquiry witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case and issued summons for offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions:
  • Relied on the Jharkhand High Court judgment in Basudev Marandi & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand (Cr.M.P. No. 2130 of 2018) to outline the essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC, arguing none were satisfied.
  • Cited Supreme Court judgment in Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC 336, emphasizing that deception must exist at the inception of the transaction for cheating under Section 420.
  • Cited Supreme Court judgment in Arsad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2058, reiterating that fraudulent intent at the time of promise is required for cheating.
  • Asserted that the dispute is purely a civil property dispute; the legal notice indicated the petitioner received 4,935 sq. ft. of the front part of the building, while the back part belongs to his brother Gopal Modi.
  • Opposition’s Submissions: Counsel for the State and for Opposite Party No. 2 argued that, assuming all allegations are true, the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC are satisfied and the petition should be dismissed.

Court’s Reasoning

  • The Court reiterated the principles from Basudev Marandi that for Section 406 IPC, there must be entrustment of property to the accused and dishonest misappropriation or conversion.
  • Found no allegation that any property was entrusted to the petitioner; consequently, the ingredient of entrustment is missing.
  • Concluded there is no allegation of dishonest misappropriation or conversion of any property.
  • Regarding Section 420 IPC, the Court observed there is no allegation of deception, false representation, or fraudulent inducement by the petitioner.
  • In the absence of the essential ingredients for both offences, even if all allegations were true, the offences are not made out.
  • Held that continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law.

Final Outcome

  • The entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class‑VIII, Ranchi in Protest‑cum‑Complaint Case No. 4281 of 2022, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
  • The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

Topics: Criminal Law, Property Dispute