Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Ranadhir Sharma, S/o- Late Nalini Sarma – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. None appears for the respondent No.2/complainant.
2. It appears that this Court by order dated 02.03.2015 has held that notice has been duly served on the respondent No.2. However, despite of receipt of notice, respondent No.2 has not appeared before this Court till date.
3. This petition is filed under Section 482, read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint case being C.R. Case No. 213/2011 filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon corresponding to Dhaligaon P.S. Case No. 123/2011 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the subsequent Charge-sheet No. 69/2012 dated 27/06/2012, under Section 417/420 of IPC and the order dated 11/10/2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon in G.R. Case No. 641/2011 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 417/420 of IPC.
4. It appears that a complaint case was filed by respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner received two contract
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating under IPC unless fraudulent intent is established at the time of the transaction.
The judgment established that not every breach of contract amounts to a criminal offence and emphasized the importance of the presence of deception and dishonesty at the inception of a transaction to....
While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against accused f....
The court ruled that mere contractual disputes do not constitute criminal offenses, and criminal proceedings cannot be used as substitutes for civil remedies.
The judgment established the importance of 'mens rea' in the offense of cheating and emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offenses.
Criminal proceedings against individuals in a contractual dispute must establish criminal intent; otherwise, matters should be addressed through civil litigation, preventing abuse of legal process.
For an offence under Section 420 IPC, essential deception must exist from the transaction's inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to constitute cheating.
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
