Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
JCD
KUNDANSINH DEVABHAI PARMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
(J. C. DOSHI, J.)
1. By way of this petition, petitioner seeks the quashing of Criminal Case No. 232 of 2018, pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Maliya Hatina, wherein process has been issued against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
2. Learned advocate Mr. Parth S. Toliya, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the land in question was sold by the petitioner to respondent No.2 on 25.03.2008 through a registered sale deed. However, in 2013, respondent No.2 discovered that the land sold under the registered sale deed was less in measurement than stated. Consequently, he filed Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 2013 before the Civil Court, Maliya.
2.1. It is further submitted that, after a lapse of five years, in 2018, on the same set of allegations, respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner. The learned trial court, after recording verification, issued process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for the sake of brevity, “Cr.P.C.”) for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Furthermore, Regular
The essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating must be established; mere deficiency in land measurement does not imply deceit or fraud.
The FIR was quashed as it lacked essential elements of criminal breach of trust and cheating, being merely a misuse of criminal process to enforce a contractual obligation.
The distinction between criminal breaching of trust and cheating must establish prior dishonest intent from the outset, and purely civil disputes cannot be criminally prosecuted.
At the stage of framing of charge, a roving inquiry into the evidence is not required, and if the facts disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges may b....
The FIR did not disclose essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust or cheating, reflecting a misuse of police powers to convert a civil dispute into a criminal proceeding.
The court determined that mere breaches of contract do not constitute criminal offences without proof of fraudulent intent, emphasizing that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal compl....
At the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused may be made out.
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
