Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
FARJAND ALI
Nemaram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through order under assail as well as the other relevant material as made available to this Court.
2. By way of filing instant petition a challenge has been made to the very lodging of the FIR No. 115/18, on the ground that even if the contents of the FIR are taken in its entirety or even on its face value or even it is not rebutted the same does not show cognizable offence rather it seems to be a dispute of predominately civil nature. I have minutely gone through the contents of the FIR and so also the other relevant material.
3. Indisputably the complainant in this regard had entered into an agreement for the sale of a piece of land with brother of the petitioner No.1 in the year 2013, it is the assertion of the complainant that after making an upfront amount, he had paid the entire amount of sale consideration to the brother of the petitioner No.1, however, he did not execute the sale deed in his favour which made him to lodge the FIR. It is further contended in the FIR that no payment was due with the vendor and therefore, he was supposed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant instead thereof he connived with hi
A breach of contract does not constitute a cognizable offence; criminal prosecution requires evidence of deceitful intent and breach of trust.
A breach of contract does not constitute a criminal act unless there is fraudulent intent at the transaction's inception, distinguishing civil liabilities from criminal offences of cheating and breac....
Mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating under IPC; dishonest intent must be proven to establish criminal liability.
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 ....
The allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under IPC Sections 406 and 420, as they lack essential elements of criminal intent, reflecting a civil dispute instead.
Non-payment in commercial transactions does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust without establishing fraudulent intent.
The court ruled that a civil dispute cannot be criminalized without clear evidence of fraudulent intent, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
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.
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
