Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Mukesh Kumar Sinha, S/o. Shri Gopi Krishna Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.04.2016 whereby cognizance under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 104/2015 corresponding to G.R. No.3431/2015, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Ranchi.
3. The informant lodged the FIR alleging therein that the informant in the year 2009 entered into an agreement with one Samridhi Creative Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of having purchase of a Duplex in the project 'Rainbow 7' which was under construction. The informant gave Rs.18,90,000/- to one Mr. Rohan Kumar. Subsequently, the informant learnt that the entire work and responsibility of construction and bonafide ownership has been shifted on the shoulders of one Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha. It was further alleged that the informant has been asking for the possessions of that flat since long and the accused person is not giving the possession of the Duplex.
4. Learned co
The central legal point established is the disapproval of settling civil disputes through criminal prosecution and the distinction between breach of contract and cheating as a criminal offense.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence under IPC without evidence of fraudulent intent; the matter remains civil, permitting the aggrieved party to seek redress through civi....
A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.
Once a forum is chosen, the parties are not allowed to choose a new forum, and the nature of the case should be considered before initiating criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if criminality is made out, civil and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously.
Criminal proceedings should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a criminal proceeding can be quashed if it is manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prima facie evidence of criminal intent before taking cognizance of a case and the relevance of contractual obligations in d....
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
