IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Mukesh Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No.724 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code - Quashing of Criminal Proceeding - Lack of Intention to Cheat
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of taking documents and money from the complainant with the promise of providing distributorship, but failed to fulfill the promise. The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceeding, arguing that it was a civil dispute and there was no intention to cheat.
Finding of the Court:
The court, citing the legal principle that the intention to cheat since the very inception is essential to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, found that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner had any intention to cheat the complainant from the beginning. Therefore, the court quashed the entire criminal proceeding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's actions constituted the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and whether the criminal proceeding should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that the intention to cheat since the very inception is essential to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and found that there was no material to suggest such intention in the present case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016, including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017, and allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took Aadhar Card, PAN Card, two passport size photographs and two blank signed cheques of the complainant/opposite party No.2 with the promise of giving him distributorship and the complainant also transferred Rs.30,000/- to the Bank account of the complainant and the petitioner even attempted to withdraw money illegally by using one of those cheques but the same got dishonoured.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.30,000/- in shape of a demand draft in favour of the complainant in terms of the order passed in A.B.A. No.6489 of 2019. It is next submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner had any intention of cheating the complainant/opposite party No.2 since the beginning and at best the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. It is further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016 and including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017 be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017 and submit that there is sufficient material in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur and Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, para 10 of which reads as under :-
(Emphasis supplied)
that the intention to cheat since the very inception is sine qua non to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. After going through the materials available in the record, this Court do not find any material in the record to suggest that there is any allegation against the petitioner that he had any intention to cheat the complainant from the very inception. The dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.389 of 2016; including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2017, as prayed for by the petit
The necessity of proving fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
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....
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 intention to cheat from the inception is essential for the offense under Section 420, and dishonest disposition or retention is required for the offense under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code....
A loan default does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses.
Criminal proceedings against an accused can be quashed if allegations do not establish her direct involvement or dishonest intention, as per sections 406 and 420 IPC.
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
Civil disputes lack criminal intent necessary for cheating charges under IPC.
The court quashed proceedings for cheating and intimidation, finding no prima facie case due to lack of dishonest intention and insufficient evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.