By the Court:- ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 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 proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.684 of 2018 including the order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 504, 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the complainant for selling a flat and took advance of Rs.18,00,000/- in total and promised to give the complainant a flat within 24 months but they did not give the flat to the complainant and also did not reply to the legal notice and on 27.08.2016, when the complainant and her husband went to the house of the accused persons, they abused the complainant and her husband and also threatened to kill them. The complainant-informant filed Complaint Case No.825 of 2016 which upon being referred to Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Kadma P.S. Case No.144 of 2016 was registered and police took up investigation of the case and after investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioners are of civil nature and submitted Final Form and did not send up the petitioners for trial. The complaint-cum- protest petition was filed by the informant-complainant which was numbered as Complaint Case No.684 of 2018 and on the basis of the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 504, 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioners. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh Pandey vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.2255 of 2016, dated 08.07.2025 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of 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 , para-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) and wherein it has been held that the amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted to the accused person by the complainant and merely because the seller is refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance amount paid. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioners. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute and in the absence of any material available in the record to show that the petitioners played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioners. 5. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manik Taneja & Another vs. State of Karnataka & Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 para-12 of which reads as under:- “12. 5. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manik Taneja & Another vs. State of Karnataka & Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 para-12 of which reads as under:- “12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of “criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the mind of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of the appellants posting a comment on Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.” and submits that in the absence of any allegation that the threat allegedly given was with intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to cause alarm to the complainant to do or omit to do any work, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation that the intentional insult caused to the complainant was for the purpose of provoking breach of peace or to commit any other offences, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioners. 6. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation that the intentional insult caused to the complainant was for the purpose of provoking breach of peace or to commit any other offences, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegations of commission of offence punishable under Section 504 /506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE are only ornamental allegations to make the offence graver one. Hence, it is submitted that none of the offences in respect of which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. 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 there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of cheating Rs.18,00,000/- to the informant-complainant and having dishonestly misappropriated the said amount, hence, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is also made out against the petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted that at this nascent stage, the entire criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed and set aside. It is lastly 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, 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 Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , the relevant portion of para-6 of which reads as under :- “6. Xxxxx 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. Xxxxx 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 have played deception at the very inception of the transaction between the parties. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of having been playing deception since the very beginning of the transaction between the parties. 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 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra), the consideration money given by the purchaser to the seller of property cannot be termed as entrustment in terms of Section 405 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and in the absence of the essential ingredients of entrustment and also in the absence of any dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioners. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 , para-24 and 25 of which read as under:- “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715]. 25. Now, reverting back to Section 506 , which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is neither any specific allegation against the petitioners of intentionally insulting the complainant or anyone else nor there is any allegation against the petitioners of giving any provocation to the complainant intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break public peace and in the absence of any material regarding these essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 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 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out. 13. In view of the discussions made above; since none of the offences in respect of which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No.684 of 2018 be quashed and set aside. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No.684 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. 15. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 16. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 03.12.2019 is vacated. 17. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.