Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Hare Gopal @ Hari Gopal Kumhar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 1065 of 2017
Decided on : 19-06-2024
[CRIMINAL LAW] - [CHEATING AND FRAUD] - [Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC] - [The court discussed the definitions and essential ingredients of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC, emphasizing that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is fraudulent or dishonest intention from the inception. The court highlighted that the allegations did not disclose any criminal offense and that the matter was primarily civil in nature, leading to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of cheating the opposite party by failing to execute a sale deed for land after receiving a substantial amount of money. The opposite party alleged that the petitioners falsely represented ownership of the land and subsequently assaulted him when he attempted to visit the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not establish the essential elements of cheating as defined under the IPC. It noted that the entire consideration for the land was not paid, and the dispute was primarily civil, as evidenced by the pending title suit for specific performance.
Issues: Whether the allegations against the petitioners constituted a criminal offense of cheating under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, or whether the matter was purely civil in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent at the inception of the agreement. The court emphasized that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance, stating that the matter was civil in nature and should be resolved through civil litigation.
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 share of 42 decimals 1.e. 21 decimals in both khata total area 82.05 kathas.
It is alleged that the petitioner no.1 induced that he is the shareholder of the aforesaid land and the said land belongs to his grandfather Late Bhikhu Kumhar and total value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 13,500/- per katha and total Rs. 11,07,712/- (Rupees eleven lakhs seven thousand seven hundred and twelve) out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) was paid as an advance. It is further alleged that the petitioner no.1 received money from the opposite party no.2 on the different dates and put his signature on the back of the agreement and the petitioner no.2 is the son of the petitioner no.1 also received money from the opposite party no.2 and lastly on 11.03.2010 Rs. 6,86,000/- were received by both the petitioners and put the opposite party no.2 in possession of the said land as per an agreement dated 27.07.2005.
It is also alleged that both the petitioners have cheated the money of the opposite party no.2 with false assurance that the said land belongs to the petitioners. It is alleged that lastly on 19.11.2011 the opposite party no.2 served legal notice to the petitioner no.1 which was replied by the petitioner no.1 01.12.2011 execution in which of the he admitted agreement on the dated 27.07.2005, but the same plots under Khata No. 35 were denied to be their own and half share of the land was disclosed to be his brother Sidheshwar Kumhar.
It is further alleged that after receipt of reply again the opposite party no.2 on 15.12.2011 replied the reply of the notice dated 01.12.2011 given by the petitioner no.1. Again the petitioner no.1 gave reply dated 21.12.2011 and disclosed that the period of agreement has been expired although no notice was served regarding the expiry of the period of agreement rather till 11.03.2010, the petitioners received opposite party no.2. It is further alleged that on 02.01.2012 at about 12.00 p.m. the opposite party no.2 along with his witnesses went to picnic on the said land but both the petitioners along with 4-5 unknown armed with lethal weapons came there and abused the opposite party no.2 in filthy languages and gave out with dire consequences and thereafter the opposite party no.2 was also assaulted by the men of the petitioners, on hulla they fled away and they caused mischief in throwing the articles of picnic and further it has been alleged that the petitioner no.1 snatched a gold chain valued Rs. 10,000/- and fled away and on the basis of aforesaid allegation, a complaint case was filed, which was subsequently registered as First Information Report and thereafter the police took-up the investigation in their hands.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by way of referring the contents of the complaint petition submits that
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
