JUDGMENT ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. 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 a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1447 of 2021 in which after investigation of the case police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners of having committed the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and also the order taking cognizance dated 04.08.2021 passed in the said Sadar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1447 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh took cognizance inter-alia against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners dishonesty induced and by way of cheating made the informant invest equal amount of money for purchasing land in the name of the petitioners by promising the informant to transfer the respective share of the informant in the property to be purchased. There is further allegation that the petitioners thus having dominion over the investment made by the informant have dishonestly misappropriated the same to their own use; by not transferring the land purchased with the money of the informant to the informant and selling the land to a third person who is co- accused namely Masomat Bishni. On the basis of the allegation made against the petitioners, police after investigation found the allegation against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and consequent upon submission of charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offences. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though charges have also been framed against the petitioners but the order framing charge has not been challenged by the petitioners. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 196 , in para -6 of the which Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has referred to its own Judgment in the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand , reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 wherein it was observed that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised sparingly and complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have criminal texture but if a case is essentially of civil nature, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceeding and as in the facts of that case it was found that the dispute between the parties was essentially of civil nature further as the parties settled their dispute later, hence in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R. and submits that in this case also, the dispute between the parties is essentially of civil nature. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. , in Cr.M.P. No. 1308 of 2022, dated 28.11.2023 wherein in the facts of that case where after filing the civil case for a period of more than two decades, a complaint was filed; as the complainant remained unsuccessful in the civil dispute and in that case as there was no allegation of the accused having any intention of deceiving the complainant or his mother at the time of entering into the agreement nor there was any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of the property, this Court quashed the criminal proceeding and submits that in this case also, the offence punishable under Section 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Jayantilal V. Gada @ Jayantlal Gada Vs. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Jayantilal V. Gada @ Jayantlal Gada Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., in Cr.M.P. No. 4117 of 2019 dated 15.03.2021 wherein the dispute between the parties was regarding the share of the profits; which was not paid to the informant but there was no allegation that there was intention to cheat from the very inception, the Co- ordinate Bench found that the allegation made in the F.I.R. do not constitute any criminal offence. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that in this case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of inducing the informant to part with equal amount of money; as the petitioners were investing, for purchase of a land in the name of the petitioners and there is agreement to this effect, the veracity of which has not been disputed by the petitioners. So, this is a case of admitted entrustment of money by the informant to the petitioners. It is next submitted that it remains undisputed that the petitioners have not transferred the ownership of the land in question to the informant and thereby dishonestly misappropriated the money entrusted by the informant to the petitioners. It is next submitted that the facts of this case is that the petitioners cheated and thereby dishonestly induced the informant to part with money to purchase a property in the name of the petitioners; with the money entrusted to them by the informant and they did so with the intention of cheating and such intention of cheating was existing since the beginning, hence the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is submitted that the facts of this case, is sufficient to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, the punishment for which has been provided in Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. It is next submitted that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. It is next submitted that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (supra), Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra) and Dr. Jayantilal V. Gada @ Jayantlal Gada Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. 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 going through the materials 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 Dinesh Sharma v. Emgee Cables & Communication Ltd. And Another, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 929 para -20 & 23 of which reads as under:- “20. In the present case, in our opinion, the High Court committed a serious error, in quashing the proceedings on a premise, that there were long business transactions between the parties, and initiation of criminal proceedings was an arm-twisting tactic to extract the pending dues from respondent company. It may not be out of place to state the High Court was apprised with a factum aspect that the directors of the company, established certain dummy/shell companies and the monetary transaction were circulated to these shell/dummy companies. It was also brought to the notice of the High Court, that the High Court records the fact proceedings under the PMLA and initiated against the director of companies and observed that even prior to these proceedings there were monetary transaction between the appellant and the respondent company. Now the High Court failed to appreciate the factum that the act of the company creating/establishing shell companies and circulating monetary transaction through these companies itself was an indicator of an intention of deceit. In this backdrop, the High Court erred in giving an undue weightage to the fact that there was an earlier transaction between the appellant and respondent so as to quash the proceedings. In this backdrop, the High Court erred in giving an undue weightage to the fact that there was an earlier transaction between the appellant and respondent so as to quash the proceedings. A profitable reference can be made to the case of Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana wherein this Court observed that: “It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, it could quash a First Information Report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the F.I.R. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.”” 23. A profitable reference can be made to the case of Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujrat wherein it was observed that economic offences by their very nature lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between private parties and the High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. Thus, it can be concluded that economic offences by their very nature stand on a different footing than other offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a class apart. Economic offences affect the economy of the country as a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the confidence and trust of the public will be shaken.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein relying upon its own Judgment, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that economic offences by their very nature lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between private parties and the High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. 9. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the informant invested money equally with the petitioners and the petitioners by dishonestly inducing the informant to part with the money with the promise that they will transfer the land to the name of the informant after the property is transferred to the name of the petitioners; cheated the informant. They also dishonestly misappropriated the property entrusted to them by the informant. The undisputed fact remains that these acts have been done by the petitioner. 10. Under such circumstances, in view of this admitted fact of this case, this Court is of the considered view that prima facie both the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners if the allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety. 11. It is needless to mention that the facts of the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (supra), Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra) and Dr. Jayantilal V. Gada @ Jayantlal Gada Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. are entirely different from the facts of this case; as herein in this case, there is direct allegation against the petitioners of having intention to cheat the informant since the very inception and the petitioners have dishonestly misappropriated the property of the informant while having the dominion over the same. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners be quashed and set aside in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the trial has admittedly already begun with the framing of the charge and the order framing charge is not under challenge. 13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.