Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Ravindra Kumar Goyal, son of Madan Lal Goyal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.03.2024 in connection with C.P.Case No.1499 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division) cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.
3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that accused person no.1 issued two different work orders to the complainant being purchase order no.3300004379 dated 24.9.2018 for Rs.8,82,640/- and purchase order no.3300004438 dated 13.10.2018 for Rs.44,84,000/- for doing capital repairs of RHF-1 (Regenerative) and MBF-1 Ranking Dismantling and Reliving in the factory premises of the petitioner at Ginigera Koppal, Karnataka. The Complainant states that he had finished both the works efficiently within stipulated time period. And submitted the bills against the work it had done with regard to two purchase orders having a total bill of Rs.55,66,640/-. It is admitted by the complainant that a sum of Rs.28,83,478//- has been paid to h
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense under IPC Sections 406 and 420; criminal proceedings should not be initiated without evidence of fraudulent intent.
Prima facie evidence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was sufficient for the Trial Court to take cognizance and proceed with the case.
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes, and the absence of fraudulent intent negates charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
The court established that a civil dispute can coexist with criminal allegations, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not negate the possibility of criminal liability if the complaint discl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute primarily civil in nature, such as non-payment under a contractual liability, does not necessarily constitute an offence under Secti....
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is dishonest intention from the outset; judicial mind must be applied before directing police investigation under Section....
Direction for Police investigation – Every breach of contract cannot be subject matter of criminal case unless there is deception played at very inception.
Mere non-payment for goods in a civil transaction cannot constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under IPC; intent must be proven.
The court held that mere non-payment of dues in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal l....
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
