Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Hare Gopal @ Hari Gopal Kumhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. Nobody has responded on behalf of the State, in spite of repeated calls.
2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.01.2013, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 264 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2510 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
4. The complaint case was lodged by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that on 27.07.2005 one written agreement executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of the opposite party no.2 in respect of land situated in Mouza No. 128, Khata No. 22, Plot No. 439 area 52 decimals, Plot No. 445 area 7½ decimals, Plot No. 46 area 21 decimals out of 15 decimals, Plot No. 46 area 5½ decimals out of 21 decimals, Plot No. 456 area 41 decimals, Plot No. 447 area 26 decimals, Plot No. 453 area 4 decimals, Plot No. 455 area 3 decimals, out of total 3 plots area 33 decimals, out of 16 decimals and all seven (7) plots total area 122½ decimals and further in the same Mouza Khata No. 35, Plot No. 444 area half shar
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 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 cannot proceed where allegations only constitute a civil dispute without intent to cheat.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, there must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and the absence ....
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.
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
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 ....
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....
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are purely civil in nature, and the High Court has the authority to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process.
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
