JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Prabhu Nath Mishra @ Prabhu
Nath Mishir @ Prabhu Nath Mishri – Petitioner
versus
State of Jharkhand and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Cr.M.P.No.2648 of 2013
Decided on 21.3.2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating – Cognizance of offence – Case is arising out of transaction for land in question – There is no allegation in entire complaint that from very beginning there was intention of cheating by petitioner – To hold a person of cheating as defined under Section 415 of I.P.C. , it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise with intention to retain property – Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings can go on simultaneously if there are allegations of criminality and if it is proved both cases can go simultaneously – However, if criminality is not made out, continuation of criminal case will amount to abuse of process of law – Entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance quashed. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
Result: Petition allowed. Criminal proceeding quashed.
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Zafar Alam, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 473 of 2011 whereby cognizance has been taken under section 420 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.
3. The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant on 06.04.2009 for sale of the land measuring an area of 40 acres comprised within plot no. 335 and the land measuring 6 acres out of plot no. 342 of khata no. 24 situated at village Pundri, P.S. Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 5,85,000/- and a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- was received by the petitioner as an advance from the complainant and Roushan Prasad Mehta at the time of execution of the agreement. It was further alleged that in the said agreement it was specially mentioned that Government rent receipts are being issued with respect to the lands in question and the complainant along with Roushan Prasad Mehta came to know from Anchal Office that the petitioner had given false statement regarding rent receipt of the entire 46 acres of land under the agreement and induced the complainant and his brother namely, Roushan Prasad Mehta to deliver a huge amount of consideration. It was further alleged that the petitioner has intentionally cheated the complainant and his brother namely, Roushan Prasad Mehta knowing that Government rent receipts are not being issued with respect to the entire lands under the agreement as the land agreement is Gairmajarua khas.
4. Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, however, he has been falsely implicated in the complaint case filed by the complainant. He further submits that in fact the power of attorney was executed between the petitioner and the complainant contained in Annexure-2 and the said power of attorney was revoked by the petitioner on 04.02.2011 on account of certain mis-conduct of the complainant, and thereafter, the complaint case was filed on 18.4.2011 by the complainant by way of retaliation. He further submits that the main grievance of the complainant is that the rent receipts were not issued, but by way of referring Annexure-5, page - 39, he submits that the rent receipts were issued in the name of the father of the petitioner however, the learned court has taken cognizance only on the ground that rent receipt is not issued in favour of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Zafar Alam, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the rent receipt is not being issued in favour of the petitioner and learned court has rightly taken cognizance and there is no illegality in the cognizance order.
6. Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court after looking into the materials on record took cognizance and there is no illegality in the cognizance order.
7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of complaint as well as order taking cognizance including other materials on record. It is an admitted fact that power of attorney was executed between the petitioner and the complainant and the said power of attorney was revoked by the petitioner on 04.02.2011 and the complaint case was filed on 18.04.2011. There is no allegation in the entire complaint that from the very beginning there was intention of cheating by the petitioner. It is well settled that to hold a person of cheating as defined under section 415 of the I.P.C., it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise wit
SupremeToday
Cheating – If criminality is not made out, continuation of criminal case will amount to abuse of process of law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove cheating under Section 415 of the I.P.C., fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise is necessary.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the case of cheating and forgery must be supported by evidence, and if there is any dispute with regard to the land in question, it should be ....
The court ruled that civil disputes do not automatically preclude criminal liability, but allegations must clearly disclose a criminal offence.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense of cheating unless there is evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention from the outset of the agreement.
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
The intention to cheat must exist at the very inception for a breach of contract to amount to cheating. Giving civil disputes the color of criminal disputes for a relatively fast relief in criminal c....
The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating must be met for a criminal proceeding to be sustained, and the distinction between executing a sale deed claiming the property as one's own and ex....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.