Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
RNR Food Product represented through its Proprietor Neeraj Ranve – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chamaria, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.06.2017 passed in connection with C.P. Case No.1102 of 2017, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant is the proprietor of a company M/s. Prem Enterprises. The accused No. 1 and 3 induced the complainant to invest amount to be a 'Consignee Sales Agent' (CSA) for entire Jharkhand State of his company for their products like Namkeen, Potato Chips and other food products and under the name and style as 'Kalaji' and with respect to the same an agreement called Consignee Seller Agreement was entered into between the parties which was duly notarized on 17.03.2006. It was further alleged that the accused persons took Rs. 24,00,000/ from the complainant during April, 2016 to August, 2016. The accused persons supplied the goods/materials for Rs. 22,44,354.33 only against the
The absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation is crucial in determining the offence of cheating under the Indian Penal Code.
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 court held that mere non-payment of dues in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal l....
The judgment established that not every breach of contract amounts to a criminal offence and emphasized the importance of the presence of deception and dishonesty at the inception of a transaction to....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
The judgment established that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and highlighted the necessity of deception at the very inception for the offence of cheating.
The main legal point established is that the continuation of a criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of law if there is no allegation of deception or criminal intent at the inceptio....
Allegations of non-payment do not constitute criminal offences unless there's evidence of dishonest intention or property entrustment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that every breach of contract does not give rise to an offence of cheating, and the intention to cheat must be present at the very inception. The j....
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
