Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH
Nasima Khatoon, wife of Late Raisuddin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
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 in their possession and Jamabandi was in the name of some other person. The informant demanded his money back but the accused persons had refused to return the money back and had assaulted him and his son.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that opposite party is purchaser and petitioners no. 1 and 2 are vendor. The sal
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.
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
Offence of cheating - Quash of criminal complaint - There is no fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person induced to deliver any property to any person again same is not the case her – Court not....
The mere failure to pay for goods in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under IPC without evidence of dishonest intention.
Failure to honour land sale agreement, with buyer aware of tenancy restrictions and advance returned, does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest intention at inception ....
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
