Back
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Anand Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.05.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Lohardaga in connection with Complaint Case No. 134 of 2019, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Lohardaga.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant handed over four number of cheque leaves to the co-accused –Anand Kumar and using the said cheque leaves, the accused persons of the case collected some money from the market but did not return the cheques. The cheques issued by the complainant have not been used for any payment. The complainant was having no money in his account. No one has instituted any case against the complainant in respect of the cheques given by him to the accused persons. The learned Magistrate taking into consideration the complaint, statement under solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406/420 read with Section 34
Allegations of cheque misuse without proof of dishonest intention do not constitute offences under IPC Sections 406 or 420, leading to quashing of the cognizance order.
A loan default does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses.
Mere breach of friendly loan repayment or promised work without dishonest intention from inception or entrustment does not constitute offences under Sections 406 or 420 IPC; remains civil dispute.
To constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust, there must be deceit at inception or dishonest misappropriation; mere breach of contract without such elements does not attract IPC provisions.
For offences under IPC Sections 420 and 406, there must be initial deception and property entrustment; lack of such elements results in quashing of proceedings.
The absence of initial deception or property entrustment negates offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under IPC sections 420 and 406.
Intention to cheat must be established from the inception of the transaction; absence of mens rea negates the offence under Section 420 IPC.
The mere breach of contract does not establish a case for criminal offences of cheating or breach of trust without evidence of deception or proper entrustment.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
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
