Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Vivek Agarwalla – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Both the cases are arising out of same complaint case and in view of that, both the cases have been heard together with consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Ruby Pandey and Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
3. In Cr.M.P. No.1795 of 2012, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No.1711 of 2006 including the order taking cognizance dated 09.11.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur and also for quashing the order dated 11.04.2008, pending in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. In Cr.M.P. No.1800 of 2012, the prayer is made for quashing the orders dated 09.06.2008, 19.08.2008, 17.01.2009, 23.03.2009, 06.07.2009, 16.11.2009, 05.01.2011 and 05.06.2012, whereby, bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest, fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest and fresh processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issue
The main legal point established is that fraudulent or dishonest intention is a precondition to constitute the offence of cheating under the Indian Penal Code.
The essential elements of cheating under Section 420 IPC require proof of deception, fraudulent inducement to deliver property, and the accused's dishonest intention at the time of the inducement, wh....
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.
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 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 mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.
A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the time of the transaction.
Criminal proceedings for cheating require clear evidence of fraudulent intent and misrepresentation; mere breach of contract does not suffice to constitute a criminal offense.
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
