Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Jitendra Yadav @ Jeetendra Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer with regard to prayer no.2 relating to quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.121 of 2022 dated 22.5.2022, registered under sections 420, 409/120B IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. Mr. Utkarsh Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR the allegations are made that the informant has supplied coal to various companies/ persons and against that the money was due to the informant and inspite of that those persons are not paying the money to the informant and he submits that so far the role of the petitioner is concerned only the allegations is made that the petitioner has introduced the informant with M/s Bajrang Coke, Kanpur (Dehat). He submits that in the FIR itself it is disclosed that after supply of the coal certain amount has been paid however for recovery of certain amount the case has been lodged and if such a situation is there, the only remedy to the informant is to fi
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial fraudulent intent; civil remedies should be pursued instead of criminal proceedings.
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
A dispute over loan repayment, lacking evidence of deception or fraudulent intent, is deemed a civil matter and does not justify criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code.
The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is established, quashing the FIR due to lack of supporting evidence....
Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is established from the outset, as per Section 420 IPC.
The mere failure to pay for goods in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under IPC without evidence of dishonest intention.
Failure to honour land sale agreement, with buyer aware of tenancy restrictions and advance returned, does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest intention at inception ....
Criminal proceedings can continue despite the civil nature of a dispute if criminal allegations are substantiated in the FIR.
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
