IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J
Sumita Biswas @ Sumita, D/o Late Prodyot Kumar Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Though notice has been validly served upon the respondent no.3, no one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.3 in-spite of repeated calls.
3. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing the entire proceeding in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 346 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B/506/385/387 of the Indian Penal Code .
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the informant in capacity of Managing Partner of Kamakhya Builders entered into a collaboration agreement that the father of the petitioners namely Prodyot Kumar Ghosh in respect of a land situated at Delhi and thereafter Prodyot Kumar Ghosh executed a power of attorney in favour of the informant. Prodyot Kumar Ghosh also made a Will in respect of the property in favour of the informant in which , inter alia the petitioners were witnesses. On 30.07.2010 Prodyot Kumar Ghosh died. On 17.03.2013 a nomination agreement was made with Vibgyor Estates Private Li
Criminal liability cannot be imposed without establishing essential elements such as entrustment and deception, as per the Indian Penal Code.
No offences under IPC 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34 against petitioner absent forgery, entrustment, or initial deception allegations despite associate role and witnessing agreement; FIR quashed under C....
Continuance of criminal proceedings based on civil disputes, without established fraudulent intent, is an abuse of process of law.
Allegations must demonstrate elements of criminal offenses; lack of evidence led to quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.
The mere non-execution of a land sale agreement does not constitute criminal misappropriation or cheating; these offences require proof of initial deception or entrustment, rendering the case a civil....
The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner due to insufficient allegations to constitute offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420.
A civil dispute arising from breach of contract does not constitute criminal offences of cheating or misappropriation under IPC without initial fraudulent intent.
Allegations of misappropriation under IPC Sections 406 and 34 cannot proceed without evidence of entrustment and dishonest intent; mere inability to repay a loan does not constitute criminal breach o....
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.