Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Jagdeo Kumar Oraon, S/o. Late Dasai Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P.Case No.104 of 2016, including the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Bokaro, whereby cognizance under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken on the complaint filed by the Opposite party no.2 and summons have been issued against the accused person including the petitioner, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Bokaro.
2. O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint, alleging therein that:
The opposite party no.2 namely Ambuj Choudhary filed a complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, on 04.02.2016. The same was registered as C.P.Case No.104 of 2016. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused no.5 in the said complaint case. The allegation in short, is that the accused nos.1 to 3 by misrepresenting themselves as the legal heirs and representatives of the recorded tenant of the land pertaining to Plot No.460, Khata No.55, Village Rangamatiya, Thana Chandankiyari, Thana No.254, District Bokaro, measuring 29.25 acres have executed a Sale Deed dated 12.11.2015 i
The central legal point established in the judgment is that allegations involving the execution of a sale deed claiming ownership do not necessarily constitute the offence of cheating under section 4....
The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating must be met for a criminal proceeding to be sustained, and the distinction between executing a sale deed claiming the property as one's own and ex....
The courts can quash criminal proceedings if there is insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of fraud.
The absence of specific allegations of deception and intent to defraud against a party in criminal proceedings can lead to the quashing of charges under the Indian Penal Code.
The court ruled that allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC require evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of transaction, which was lacking, necessitating a quash of criminal proceedings.
Allegations of forgery and cheating under IPC Sections 467, 468, and 420 were not substantiated, necessitating resolution of boundary disputes in civil court.
The petitioner's role in the conspiracy to commit other offences was prima facie disclosed, and the offence under Section 420 IPC was not made out against the petitioner.
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
