Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Kumar Singh @ Rupesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Achinto Sen, learned A.P.P. for the State and Ms Shrestha Priya Jha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.08.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with C.P. Case No. 1776 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. The complaint case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 alleging inter alia that the complainant is a business man running his business at Rani Sati Mandir Lane, Ratu Road, Ranchi. In the month of October, 2011 one Mritunjay Mishra came to the complainant and introduced himself as Area Sales Manager of KPR Industries and disclosed that his company is manufacturer of Tea and Spices having its factory at Ghaziabad and Haryana and expressed his desire to carry on business in the Ranchi and Jharkhand Market and asked the complainant to carry on business with the said company and since the complainant is also desirous to develop his busin
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if criminality is made out, civil and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously.
The main legal point established is that for the offence of cheating, there must be fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, and every breach of contract would not amount ....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention of the accused in inducing the victim and the factual foundation for the offence are crucial in determining the prima facie case....
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the inception of the agreement.
Prima facie evidence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was sufficient for the Trial Court to take cognizance and proceed with the case.
The court quashed proceedings for cheating and intimidation, finding no prima facie case due to lack of dishonest intention and insufficient evidence.
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.
No offence under Sections 406/420 IPC without deception at transaction inception or entrustment with dishonest misappropriation; business account disputes civil, not criminal; proceedings quashed und....
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
