News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 29
Ranchi, January 06, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man and his wife in a long-running family property dispute, holding that the allegations, even if accepted in full, did not make out offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code. The ruling was delivered by Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary in Cr.M.P. No. 557 of 2023 on January 5, 2026.
The case arose from a complaint filed by a man against his own brother and sister-in-law in Giridih district. The complainant alleged that during a village-level settlement, or panchayati, it was agreed that he would pay ₹50,000 to his brother, after which the couple would vacate a jointly occupied house. Although the money was paid, the house was not vacated, prompting criminal proceedings alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Earlier, the dispute had been referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, the police concluded that the matter was civil in nature and did not recommend prosecution. Dissatisfied, the complainant pursued the matter through a protest petition, following which a magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. That order was challenged before the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction.
While examining the record, the Court noted that the core issue revolved around a family arrangement linked to occupation of joint property. Justice Choudhary relied on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India, particularly that not every breach of promise or agreement amounts to cheating. For an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be deception from the very inception of the transaction. In the present case, the complaint did not allege any dishonest intention at the outset.
The Court also addressed the charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. It held that mere payment of money pursuant to an understanding between family members could not, by itself, amount to “entrustment” as required under law. There were no allegations suggesting dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property, an essential ingredient to sustain such a charge.
On this reasoning, the High Court concluded that continuing the criminal case would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It therefore set aside the magistrate’s 2018 order taking cognizance and quashed the criminal proceedings against both petitioners.
The judgment once again draws a clear line between civil disputes, particularly those arising out of family and property arrangements, and criminal liability. It reinforces the principle that criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tactic in disputes that essentially call for civil remedies.
Case Reference: Cr.M.P. No. 557 of 2023, Nageshwar Prasad Verma and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another; Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate; Counsel for the State: Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor; Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate.
