Archana Grover vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

Though, notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1899 of 2021 in which the summoning order has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 11.07.2022 after finding the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

The brief fact of the case is that the husband of the petitioner during his lifetime took Rs.66,45,364/- as loan from the complainant and after the death of her husband, the business of her husband is being looked after by the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has passed the said summoning order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Annapurna B. Uppin and Others vs. Malsiddappa and Another reported in (2024) 8 SCC 700 and submits that in para-16 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that legal heirs of a deceased partner do not become liable for any liability of the firm, upon the death of the partner and submits that in this case admittedly the petitioner has not committed any overt act in taking money by way of loan by her husband, hence, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that judgment has dealt with the law relating to the ingredients of Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the materials available in the record is sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

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 that mere inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction; as it is mens rea which is the crux of the offence, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph nos.13 of which reads as under:-

Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” (Emphasis supplied)

Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that the petitioner had no role in taking of money by her husband during his lifetime. It is a settled principle of law that a criminal liability cannot be fastened upon legal heirs of a person inheriting his property. Since, the petitioner was not anyway involved in the transaction of loan taken by her husband, so no mens rea can be attributed to the petitioner.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still neither of the offences punishable under Section 406 or 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegation made against them are considered to be true. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1899 of 2021 in which the summoning order has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 11.07.2022, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1899 of 2021 in which the summoning order has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 11.07.2022, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.

In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted, if any, is vacated..