News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 32
Ranchi, January 08, 2026 : The High Court of Jharkhand has quashed criminal proceedings against a senior bank official of State Bank of India, holding that the allegations arising from a dishonoured cheque dispute did not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code.
The ruling came in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3799 of 2019, decided on January 6, 2026, by Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary. The petitioner, an Assistant General Manager posted at the SBI Hatia Branch in Ranchi, had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated through Complaint Case No. 4572 of 2018, including the order by a Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC.
The dispute stemmed from a complaint alleging that a cheque deposited by the complainant in his SBI account was neither honoured nor returned. The complainant claimed that when he approached the petitioner, who was the administrative head of the branch, he was told that the cheque was not available and would not be returned. This led to the filing of a criminal complaint, followed by a summoning order against the bank official.
Examining the record, the High Court noted that the complaint itself did not allege any deception at the inception of the transaction. Relying on settled legal principles, the Court reiterated that a mere failure or subsequent conduct cannot amount to cheating unless dishonest intention exists from the very beginning. On this basis, the Court found that no offence under Section 420 IPC was made out even if the allegations were taken at face value.
The Court also dealt in detail with the charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. It emphasised that entrustment of property is the foundational requirement for this offence. In the present case, the complainant had admitted that he deposited the cheque directly in his bank account and did not hand it over personally to the petitioner. In the absence of any specific allegation showing entrustment of the cheque to the individual officer, the Court held that criminal liability could not be fastened on him. At best, the Court observed, any entrustment would have been to the bank as a corporate entity, which was not even arraigned as an accused.
Rejecting the argument of deemed entrustment, the High Court concluded that neither cheating nor criminal breach of trust, even with the aid of conspiracy, was made out against the petitioner. Continuing the criminal proceeding in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 4572 of 2018, including the cognizance order dated August 9, 2019, insofar as it related to the petitioner, and allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case Reference: Cr.M.P. No. 3799 of 2019, Jasbir Singh, Ranchi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another; Counsel: For the Petitioner – Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate; For the State – Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Special Public Prosecutor; For Opposite Party No. 2 – Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate and Ms. Rakhi Rani, Advocate.
