Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Geeta Kumari Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for State and Mr. P.K. Deomani, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 259 of 2011 including order taking cognizance dated 11.01.2013, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Gumla.
3. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that the complainant is the proprietor of Umang Marketing Sisai Road, Gumla. On 18.07.2011 accused along with her husband Manoj Kumar came to the shop of complainant purchased 96 pieces of Reliance Telcom Mobile set. The value of the said mobile was a sum of Rs. 94055/- but out of which she paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- through cheque and about the rest amount she assured the complainant that she is a local lady no cheating will be done by her. The accused and her husband were known to the complainant and as such he believed upon them. The accused did not pay the balance amount. The complainant on several occasions told to make the payment then on 28.08.2011 the accused with her husband came to the shop of complainant and further gave assurance to make
The main legal point established is that the intention of cheating and non-payment under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code must be proven, and the dishonour of a cheque can lead to maintaina....
The intention to cheat must be shown to exist at the inception of the transaction for seeking prosecution for the offences of cheating and breach of trust.
A charge of cheating under S.420, IPC requires deception and fraudulent intent which were not established in this case.
The absence of specific allegations of dishonest intent at the time of cheque issuance negates the establishment of an offense under S.420, IPC.
The intention to cheat or defraud must be established from the inception, and belated complaints may raise a presumption of being for pressuring quick realization of due amounts.
The essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC are deception through false representation and a fraudulent inducement causing the delivery of property, with mens rea necessary from incep....
A mere breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, and fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fraudulent inducement and mens rea in constituting the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
The necessity of condoning the delay in filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act and the specific provisions of Section 138 were central to the judgment.
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
