Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Kumar Singh and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 366 of 2017
Decided On : 11-06-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - CHEATING AND BREACH OF CONTRACT - IPC SECTIONS 420, 406, 120B, 34 - The court discussed the essential elements of cheating under Section 420 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. It highlighted that mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is established. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments to reinforce the principle that criminal proceedings should not be initiated for civil disputes, thus influencing its decision to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them for alleged cheating related to a writ petition filed concerning a notice to vacate a shop. The FIR claimed that one petitioner withdrew the writ petition without consent from other shopkeepers, leading to accusations of cheating.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not establish the necessary elements of cheating, particularly the lack of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. It noted that the petitioners acted in compliance with a collective decision to file the writ petition, and the withdrawal of the petition did not indicate fraudulent intent.
Issues: Whether the actions of the petitioners constituted cheating under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120B, and 34, and whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offence of cheating to be established, there must be proof of dishonest intention from the beginning of the transaction. Mere withdrawal of a civil writ petition does not amount to cheating unless it is shown that there was an intention to deceive at the outset.
Final Decision: The court quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners, concluding that no case of cheating was made out.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 16.07.2016 arising out of Pakur Nagar P.S. Case No.391/2015, corresponding to G.R. No.945/2015, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.
3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that a notice has been issued to the shopkeeper from Zila Parishad, Pakur for vacating the shop from the super market because one market complex cum marriage hall will be constructed on the said building. After getting the said notice, there was a meeting held between the shopkeeper and they authorized Abhay Kumar Singh (petitioner no.1), who is running a Xerox shop in the said market, for filing a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. They have also given Rs.3,000/- each person to Abhay Kumar Singh, then one writ application being W.P.(C) No.2121/2015 dated 15.05.2015 was filed. Later on 20.07.2015, the order has been passed for maintaining status quo till the next date i.e. on 16.09.2015. It was alleged that Abhay Kumar Singh has withdrawn the case without taken consent of other petitioners. When other petitioners asked about the matter that why you have committed such type of cheating then he has replied that he has committed the cheating and they can do whatever they want to do. Hence, the present FIR was lodged by the informant against Abhay Kumar Singh (petitioner no.1) and his brother Manikant Sinha (petitioner no.2).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is one shop in the name of Manikant Sinha @ Manikant Kumar Sinha (petitioner no.2) in super market, Pakur, however, he has got no concern with the said shop because that was running by his brother Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Kumar Singh (petitioner no.1). The said super market in Pakur was constructed by Zila Parishad, Pakur. He submits that the said Zila Parishad decided to develop the said property and in view of that, notice was issued to all the shopkeepers to vacate the shop. He further submits that after receiving notice, all the shopkeepers met and decided to move before the High Court by way of filing a civil writ petition and petitioner no.1 was authorized for filing the case before the High Court. For the purpose of filing the case, a sum of Rs.3,000/- was contributed by each of the shopkeepers. He submits that pursuant to that the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2121 of 2015 was filed before the High Court on 15.05.2015, which was taken up on 20.07.2015 and after issuing notice, direction was given to maintain status quo by the parties. The said case was again taken up on 16.09.2015 and after filing of the counter affidavit, in course of argument, the Court permitted to withdraw the said petition and, accordingly, it was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.09.2015. He submits that when other petitioners came to know about withdrawal of the said writ petition, they started quarrelling with petitioner no.1. He submits that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he has got no concern as he is the brother of petitioner no.1. He submits that in a very casual manner, charge-sheet has been submitted and innocent persons have been implicated in the case. He submits that without approaching the lawyer, who had appeared before the High Court and withdrawn the case, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners and the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. According to him, the order taking cognizance is also not in accordance with law. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that the investigation was done and charge-sheet was submitt
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 proceed where allegations only constitute a civil dispute without intent to cheat.
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
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 constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the inception of the agreement.
Point of law : The making of a false representation is one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 I.P.C.. In order to bring a case for the offence of che....
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
