JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has been validly served upon the respondent no.3, no one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.3 in-spite of repeated calls. 3. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing the entire proceeding in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 346 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B/506/385/387 of the Indian Penal Code . 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the informant in capacity of Managing Partner of Kamakhya Builders entered into a collaboration agreement that the father of the petitioners namely Prodyot Kumar Ghosh in respect of a land situated at Delhi and thereafter Prodyot Kumar Ghosh executed a power of attorney in favour of the informant. Prodyot Kumar Ghosh also made a Will in respect of the property in favour of the informant in which , inter alia the petitioners were witnesses. On 30.07.2010 Prodyot Kumar Ghosh died. On 17.03.2013 a nomination agreement was made with Vibgyor Estates Private Limited which was signed inter-alia by the petitioners as confirming parties. Prodyot Kumar Ghosh in his said Will appointed Shiv Ratan Kakrania as the executor of the Will. Probate of the Will was granted by the Calcutta High Court and the executor –Shiv Ratan Kakrania executed a deed of assent in favour of the informant. It is at least that thereafter, the petitioners along with the co-accused persons hatched up a conspiracy and with a intention to cheat the informant and his company, demanded extortion of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and as the said extortion demand was not met by the informant, the petitioners from time to time in some illegal manner are disrupting the work of the informant and are creating obstruction in the same. The petitioners have threatened that unless the extortion demand is fulfilled, they will not allow the development work upon the said land. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Mishra @ Rajesh Mishra Vs. The petitioners have threatened that unless the extortion demand is fulfilled, they will not allow the development work upon the said land. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Mishra @ Rajesh Mishra Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another, vide order dated 08.06.2020, in Cr.M.P. No. 726 of 2019, that the Coordinate Bench in that case relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that civil liability cannot be converted into criminal liability. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the Judgment of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, vide judgment dated 17.03.2023 in Cr.M.P. No. 1744 of 2022 and submits that in a case of criminal breach of trust, pivotal ingredient is entrustment of property followed by misappropriation and submits that in this case, as there is no allegation of entrustment of any property against the petitioners, so obviously the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the Judgment of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Chandra Mohanti Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, vide judgment dated 17.03.2023, in Cr.M.P. No. 917 of 2022 and submits that if certain documents of sterling quality are brought on record, the Courts cannot turn blind eye to the same as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian in the case of B. Jagdish Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in (2009) 1 SCC 681. 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioners died intestate, without executing any Will. It is next submitted that the signature of the petitioners on the Will is forged and the purported Will is an unregistered document which has not even been notarized. 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioners died intestate, without executing any Will. It is next submitted that the signature of the petitioners on the Will is forged and the purported Will is an unregistered document which has not even been notarized. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners never went to the High Court of Calcutta or appeared before any Notary Public in respect of the said Will. It is next submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta vide order dated 19.06.2019 has revoked the probate of the Will granted vide order dated 12.08.2013. It is further submitted that the informant in order to harass the mother of the petitioners and to pressurize her, got completely false and frivolous cases instituted against the petitioners. It is then submitted that the respondent no.3 is having criminal antecedents and involved in illegal coal mining and land grabbing and he has been convicted by the court of Special Judge, C.B.I., New Delhi in a case of coal block scam. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is a homemaker living in Delhi and the petitioner no.2 is a resident of Kolkata running a small business. Hence, they cannot even by any stretch of imagination be involved in the offence of extortion. The informant –Binay Prakash is habitual in forging and fabricating documents and the informant has deliberately and maliciously concealed the fact that the probate granted earlier has since been revoked by the High Court of Calcutta; on the allegation made by the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this writ petition be allowed. 9. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition and submits that the offences alleged in the F.I.R. are made out from the contents of the F.I.R. itself. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition ought not to be allowed at this nascent stage. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition and submits that the offences alleged in the F.I.R. are made out from the contents of the F.I.R. itself. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition ought not to be allowed at this nascent stage. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) There must be an entrustment; (ii) There must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of a legal direction of any legal contract, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641 . 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioners nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation. Hence, even if the entire allegations made in the F.I.R. 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. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said offence are:- (i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of person by deceiving him, (ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and (iii) Such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, as has been held in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr , reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 . 13. vs. State of Bihar & Anr , reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 . 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing any deception either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission, nor there is any allegation that any dishonest inducement was made either for delivery of any property or to consent to retention thereof by any person. In the absence of the same, even if the allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) The accused put or attempted to put any person in fear of injury and (ii) He did so to commit extortion. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of putting the informant or anyone else in fear of injury. In the absence of the same, neither the offence punishable under Section 385 nor the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners; even if the contents of the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety. 16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is against unknown persons purported to be well-wishers of the petitioners. So, in the absence of any overt or covert act on the part of the petitioners, the offence punishable under Section 506/120B of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that the informant intended to acquire the property of Prodyot Kumar Ghosh without execution of a sale deed by back door; through an unregistered Will. The probate of the Will which was granted earlier has undisputedly been revoked. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact in the F.I.R. 18. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that the informant intended to acquire the property of Prodyot Kumar Ghosh without execution of a sale deed by back door; through an unregistered Will. The probate of the Will which was granted earlier has undisputedly been revoked. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact in the F.I.R. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as none of the offences for which the F.I.R. has been registered are made out, even if the entire allegations made in the F.I.R. against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, hence the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 346 of 2022 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire proceeding in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 346 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B/506/385/387 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 19. Accordingly, the entire proceeding in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 346 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B/506/385/387 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 20. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. 21. In view of the disposal of this writ petition, the interim order passed earlier vide order dated 09.05.2024 is vacated. 22. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.