Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Jainendra Kumar Jyoti – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2011 as well as entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Complaint Case being P.C.(C/1) Case No.161 of 2009, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Seraikella.
3. The complaint case was filed on 07.12.2009 alleging therein that the petitioner along with another co-accused namely Satrughan Kumar defrauded the complainant and his company namely Adhunik Group of Companies, P.S. Kandra, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan by fraudulently transferring the piece of land bearing Thana No.47 Khata No.45, Plot No.562 and 656, measuring an area of 0.46 acres on the basis of Power of Attorney which upon scrutiny and verification by the complainant was found that Plot No.562 belongs to the Government and its real Khata No. is 77 instead of Khata No.45. It was further alleged that the aforesaid act of cheating and forgery committed by the petitioner and one another coaccused person, the petitioner h
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the case of cheating and forgery must be supported by evidence, and if there is any dispute with regard to the land in question, it should be ....
Cheating – If criminality is not made out, continuation of criminal case will amount to abuse of process of law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove cheating under Section 415 of the I.P.C., fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise is necessary.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense of cheating unless there is evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention from the outset of the agreement.
Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of dishonest intent from inception, distinguishing breach of contract from criminal offence.
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
A criminal complaint for forgery and cheating cannot be sustained merely because a party enters into a property transaction despite a defective title originating from previously declared invalid docu....
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.
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
