The Jharkhand High Court has held that payment of fees by a student or his parents to a medical college is a standard financial or contractual transaction and cannot be treated as “entrustment” of property for attracting the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against the Chairman and Secretary to the Chairman of S.S.R. Medical College, Mauritius, in connection with allegations concerning the education of a student.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of Argora Police Station Case No. 199 of 2024, registered for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC.

The informant's son, Kairav Kirtne, had obtained admission to the S.S.R. Medical College, Mauritius, for the 2019-2024 MBBS session after being allegedly attracted by advertisements of the institution.

The prosecution alleged that the college's faculty and staff subjected him to harassment and humiliation in classrooms and examinations, affecting his studies. It was further alleged that, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, he was not permitted to appear in pre-university and university examinations despite payment of USD 3,000 for allowing him to appear.

The informant alleged that his son was ultimately declared unsuccessful in the pre-university examination and was forced to leave the college. It was alleged that the family suffered financial loss and had been made to pay approximately ₹49.63 lakh on the basis of wrongful representations and tactics adopted by the college.

On the basis of the complaint, Argora Police Station registered the case and commenced investigation. The investigation was still pending and no chargesheet had been filed when the matter came before the High Court.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIR had been lodged to wreak vengeance and avoid payment of balance dues of USD 16,000 allegedly payable to the medical college. It was also submitted that the petitioners had no direct one-to-one interaction with the informant or his son and that the son was the only student among 35 Indian students in his batch who had failed.

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

The Court noted that there was no allegation that the petitioners had personally deceived the informant or his son, induced them to part with property, or played deception from the beginning of the transaction.

The Bench further noted that the student's undisputed position was that he had continued his studies at the medical college for about four-and-a-half years.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the essential ingredient of deception from the inception of the transaction was absent and, even if the allegations were accepted in their entirety, Section 420 IPC was not made out.

The Court then examined the allegation of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.

It observed that the essential requirement for criminal breach of trust is “entrustment” of property or money to the accused for a specific and restricted purpose, with ownership remaining with the person making the entrustment.

The Court held:

"Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the payment of fees of a medical college by a student or his guardian/parents cannot be termed as the 'Entrusted' as word has been used in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code."

The Bench further held that there was no allegation of entrustment or dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property and, consequently, the offence under Section 406 IPC was also not made out.

Since the Court found that neither Section 406 nor Section 420 IPC was attracted, it held that the question of any meeting of minds for committing the alleged conspiracy under Section 120B IPC also did not arise.

Holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising from Argora Police Station Case No. 199 of 2024 against the petitioners.

Case Title: Pratap Narayan Singh @ Rudrapratap Narayan Singh and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 677 of 2026

Appearance:For the Petitioners: Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ujjal Choudhury, Advocate; Ms. Avantika Panwar, Advocate; Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate; Mr. Srikant Sahay, Advocate.

For the State: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

For the Informant: Mr. Arpan Manjash Ekka, Advocate; Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order