Back
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Ruchika Kakar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
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 entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.3834 of 2018 including the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420/34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the director of Ritebanc Agritech Solution Pvt. Ltd. The co-accused – Managing Director of the said company came to the office of the complainant and entered into an agreement as per which the complainant supplied rice against eight written orders worth Rs.1,67,50,573/-by truck. A sum of Rs.34,60,000/-in total was transferred to the bank account of the complainant on different dates. On demand being made to pay the remaining money, it was told that the payment will be made after six months as there was shortage of money. Some money was also transferred to the account of the complainant from the account of Bio Ethanol Agro P
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is deception at inception; individual liability requires evidence of active role and criminal intent.
Intention to cheat must be established from the inception of the transaction; absence of mens rea negates the offence under Section 420 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that every breach of contract does not give rise to an offence of cheating, and the intention to cheat must be present at the very inception. The j....
The judgment established that not every breach of contract amounts to a criminal offence and emphasized the importance of the presence of deception and dishonesty at the inception of a transaction to....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
Allegations of non-payment do not constitute criminal offences unless there's evidence of dishonest intention or property entrustment.
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 mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust without evidence of initial deceptive intent or dishonest misappropriation.
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
