Pratap Narayan Singh @ Rudrapratap Narayan Singh and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, 2026

The informant's son, Kairav Kirtne, obtained admission to S.S.R. Medical College, Mauritius, for the 2019–2024 MBBS session.

The prosecution alleged that the student had been attracted to the institution through advertisements and representations concerning the medical course.

It was alleged that faculty members and staff subjected the student to harassment and humiliation during classes and examinations.

According to the informant, this alleged treatment adversely affected the student's studies.

The prosecution further alleged that the student was not permitted to appear in certain pre-university and university examinations despite the payment of approximately USD 3,000 for permitting him to appear.

The student was ultimately declared unsuccessful in the pre-university examination and allegedly had to leave the college.

The informant claimed that the family suffered substantial financial loss and had paid approximately ₹49.63 lakh to the institution on the basis of wrongful representations and alleged tactics adopted by the college.

On the basis of the complaint, Argora Police Station Case No. 199 of 2024 was registered for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC.

At the time the High Court considered the matter, the police investigation was still pending and no charge-sheet had been filed.

The petitioners argued that the criminal case had been instituted with an ulterior motive and to avoid payment of approximately USD 16,000 in alleged outstanding dues to the medical college.

They also argued that they had no direct one-to-one interaction with the informant or his son.

It was submitted that the student was the only student among approximately 35 Indian students in his batch who had failed.

The High Court examined whether the allegations, even if accepted at face value, disclosed the ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy.

The Jharkhand High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners.

The Court first examined the allegation of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

It observed that cheating requires the necessary element of deception and dishonest inducement, particularly deception existing from the inception of the transaction.

The Court found no allegation demonstrating that the petitioners had personally deceived the informant or his son or induced them to part with property through deception from the beginning.

The Court considered it significant that the student had continued his studies at the medical college for approximately four-and-a-half years.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the essential ingredient of deception from the inception of the transaction was absent.

The Court therefore held that even if the allegations were accepted in their entirety, the offence under Section 420 IPC was not made out.

The Court then considered the allegation under Section 406 IPC.

It explained that criminal breach of trust fundamentally requires entrustment of property or money to the accused for a particular or restricted purpose, coupled with dishonest misappropriation or conversion in violation of the relevant legal or contractual obligation.

The Court held that payment of fees by a student or his parents to a medical college constitutes a normal financial or contractual transaction and cannot, by itself, be characterised as entrustment for the purposes of Section 405 IPC.

Since there was no allegation establishing entrustment of property followed by dishonest misappropriation, the essential ingredients of Section 406 IPC were absent.

Having found that the substantive offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not made out, the Court held that the allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC could not independently sustain the proceedings.

The Court consequently held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Argora Police Station Case No. 199 of 2024 against the petitioners.

Entrustment is the foundation of Section 406: The judgment reiterates that criminal breach of trust is not established merely because one person has paid money to another. There must first be a legally recognisable relationship of entrustment.

Fee payment versus entrustment: The Court distinguished ordinary payment of educational fees from entrusting property to another for a specific and restricted purpose. Once fees are paid as consideration for educational services, the transaction ordinarily has a contractual/financial character.

Subsequent dispute does not automatically become criminal breach of trust: A disagreement concerning the quality of education, examinations, fees, academic performance or contractual obligations cannot, without the additional ingredients required by criminal law, automatically be converted into an offence under Section 406 IPC.

Cheating requires initial deception: For Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate dishonest intention and deception at the relevant inception of the transaction. A subsequent failure, dispute or dissatisfaction with performance does not necessarily establish that the original transaction was fraudulent.

Importance of the student's continued studies: The fact that the student continued studying for approximately four-and-a-half years was relevant to the Court's assessment of whether deception existed from the beginning.

Criminal law cannot be used to settle purely contractual disputes: The judgment reflects the broader principle that contractual or educational disputes should not ordinarily be given a criminal character unless the specific ingredients of a criminal offence are independently established.

Conspiracy is dependent on substantive criminal conduct: Section 120-B cannot be sustained simply by alleging that several persons acted together. There must be material indicating an agreement to commit an offence or an unlawful act of the kind contemplated by criminal conspiracy.

Quashing jurisdiction: The case demonstrates the High Court's power under Section 528 BNSS to prevent criminal proceedings from continuing where the allegations, even if accepted, fail to disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences.

Protection against abuse of criminal process: The judgment emphasises that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to continue where the dispute essentially concerns a financial or contractual relationship and the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences are missing.

Significance for educational institutions: The ruling may be particularly relevant to disputes between students/parents and educational institutions where allegations concerning fees, academic performance or institutional services are sought to be framed as criminal breach of trust or cheating.