Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Girdhar Das Agrawal @ G. D. Goyal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Both petitions are being heard together as the complaint as well as the order taking cognizance are same in both the petitions.
2. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.2.2013 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.764 of 2012 under sections 406, 420, 506, 120B IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. The complaint case has been filed by the O.P.no.2 alleging therein that on 27.9.2009 the petitioners and one another person came to the complainant and requested to be part of M/s Goyal Herbal Pvt. Ltd as they are ready to appoint him as Super Stockist which is owned by G.D.Goyal and Vijay Agrawal. On 29.09.2009 the petitioners and one another came to the business premised of O.P.No.2 and gave format for appointing as Super Stockist under letter head of M/s Goyal Herbal Pvt. Ltd along with terms and condition for being Super Stockist and said that appointment letter will be handed over to him within a week. The said that the articles will be sold out in market and for which they will assist him and appoint stockiest and will also make arrangement for sale of articles. Believing
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 if criminality is made out, civil and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of cheating requires the establishment of deceitful intention and mens rea of the accused, and a deliberate intention to cause ....
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....
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.
The court quashed proceedings for cheating and intimidation, finding no prima facie case due to lack of dishonest intention and insufficient evidence.
Civil disputes lack criminal intent necessary for cheating charges under IPC.
The essential element of dishonest intention must be present from the inception of the transaction for an offence of cheating to be established; mere breach of contract does not suffice for criminal ....
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for breach of contract or promise in business transactions, and the intention to cheat must be present from the inception of the transactions to constitute th....
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
