Back
SANJAY DHAR
Mohd. Mansoor Lone – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
JUDGEMENT
1. By this common judgment, the afore titled two petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging FIR No. 28 of 2003, for offences under section 420, 506 of IPC registered with Police Station, Kakapora Pulwama, are proposed to be disposed of.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petitions are that an application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C came to be filed by the private respondents against the petitioners and one Zahoor Ahmad Bhat before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama. In the said application, it was alleged that a deal was struck between the parties with respect to landed estate measuring 12 kanals and 02 marlas situated at Lasjan on the right side of the Bypass. It was further alleged in the application that the private respondents have transferred a sum of Rs. 1.03 crores to the petitioners and they have also issued cheques wroth Rs. 60,00,000/- which have not been encashed by them but are in possession of the petitioners through one of their close aide Shri Nisar Ahmed Mir. It was alleged that petitioner Haroon Rashid Lone even approached the Patwari concerned for issuance of revenue extracts with reg
The absence of fraudulent intention at the inception of a transaction negates the offence of cheating, and civil disputes should not be converted into criminal prosecutions.
To establish cheating under IPC, fraudulent intent must exist at the inception of the transaction; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, there must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and the absence ....
Fraudulent intent must be established for criminal liability in financial transactions, distinguishing between civil breaches of contract and criminal offenses like cheating.
Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of dishonest intent from inception, distinguishing breach of contract from criminal offence.
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes, emphasizing that the FIR lacked allegations constituting a criminal offence and should be quashed.
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....
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
