Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Ashish Kumar, S/o Sri Umesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and factual background. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the petitioner’s and informant’s positions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on legal definitions of cheating. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. conclusion on the merits of the quashing petition. (Para 11) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of dismissal. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/O.P. No.2.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 12.04.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No.916 of 2020, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘ IPC ’) against the petitioner.
3. The case of prosecution, in brief, according to the informant is that he purchased a Maruti Swift ZXI from the accused/petitioner in November, 2019 after paying Rs.5 lacs for which the accused/petitioner issued a Sale Letter in favour of the informant on 25.12.2019, which was certified by the Notary
The essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC are deception through false representation and a fraudulent inducement causing the delivery of property, with mens rea necessary from incep....
The intention to cheat from the inception is essential for the offense under Section 420, and dishonest disposition or retention is required for the offense under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of establishing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the beginning of a transaction to constitute the offence of cheating under ....
The court affirmed the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating, emphasizing that both offenses cannot coexist under the same facts while confirming the accused's conviction for forg....
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.
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....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to a criminal offence unless fraudulent intent is established from the outset.
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
