Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
AMBUJ NATH
Gouri Shankar Jain, S/o. Late Madan Lal Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over payment for supplied goods (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. legal precedents about breach of contract and cheating (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. lack of intent for cheating; quashing criminal proceedings (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. cr. m.p. allowed, quashing proceedings (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
AMBUJ NATH, J.
Nobody appears on behalf of O.P. No. 02 despite valid service of notice.
2 . Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is being disposed of after hearing of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
3. Heard the parties.
4. This Cr.M.P. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 18/2015, whereby and wherein, the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa after enquiry has found prima facie the case to be true under Sections406 & 420 of the I.P.C.
5. The case of the complainant is that he is the registered dealer for supply of iron-ore. He has been granted license under the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer’s Rule, 2007 from the office of D.M.O.,
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent at the inception is demonstrated; criminal proceedings are inappropriate where disputes are civil in nature.
Mere non-payment for goods in a civil transaction cannot constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under IPC; intent must be proven.
Non-performance of contractual obligations does not constitute criminal cheating without evidence of fraudulent intent; disputes of civil nature should be resolved through civil remedies.
No offence under Sections 406/420 IPC without deception at transaction inception or entrustment with dishonest misappropriation; business account disputes civil, not criminal; proceedings quashed und....
The court established that allegations of non-payment in a business context do not automatically constitute criminal offences without evidence of fraudulent intent.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the inception of the agreement.
The ingredients of the offenses under Sections 405/406/420 IPC are prima facie present in the case, as there was evidence of entrustment of the jewelry, dishonest intention at the time of the transac....
Point of law : exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court....
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
