Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH
Nasima Khatoon, wife of Late Raisuddin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations leading to cognizance of ipc offences (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding validity of fir and nature of claims (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. legal standards for quashing criminal proceedings (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. differentiating between civil and criminal liability (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. outcome of the quashing application (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
Purnendu Singh, J.
Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 02.04.2015 passed by learned C.J.M., Bettiah, West Champaran in Bairiya P.S. Case No. 213 of 2013, Tr. No. 3849 of 2015, whereby and where under, the cognizance for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE was taken against the petitioners.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioners had executed sale-deed for five Katha land in favour of the informant appertaining to Khata No. 574, Khesra No. 1025 after payment of consideration amount of Rs. 2,96,000/-. It has been alleged that when the informant went to take possession of the said land, he came to learn that the said land was not i
The court clarified that allegations solely involving civil transactions cannot form the basis for criminal charges under IPC Sections 406 and 420 without evidence of fraudulent intent.
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC cannot co-exist in the same transaction; criminal breach of trust and cheating are distinct offences requiring different elements of fraud.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
