Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Rajesh Prasad Gupta, S/o- Late Bindeswari Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. K. Baidya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. D. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/informant.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 whereby charge under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) was framed against the petitioner, the Charge-sheet No. 274/2014 and the proceedings thereof in connection with G.R. Case No. 1012/2013 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/informant lodged an FIR on 26.05.2013 alleging inter- alia that the Lakhipur Town Committee has informed the General public, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara District and the Circle Officer, Lakhipur Revenue Circle that they have published the Tender Notice amounting to cost of Rs. 1415.17 lakh for four numbers of works under “NLCPR- 2008/2009 under Lakhipur Town Committee” in “Dainiak Agradoot” and in
The court ruled that mere allegations without evidence of fraudulent inducement do not establish the offense of cheating under IPC, warranting quashing of charges.
The court upheld the validity of the FIR against the accused for alleged forgery and conspiracy, emphasizing that serious allegations of financial misconduct warrant investigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC requires the presence of fraudulent or dishonest intention to induce delivery of....
At the stage of considering charges, the accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used for a mini trial.
Criminal proceedings for cheating require clear evidence of fraudulent intent and misrepresentation; mere breach of contract does not suffice to constitute a criminal offense.
Discharge of accused – At this stage, Court can examine only documents forming part of charge-sheet and no other material can be considered.
The court held that strong suspicion of involvement in corruption necessitates trial, and quashing proceedings is not warranted based on innocence arguments.
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
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
