Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Manju Singh, wife of Umesh Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges criminal proceedings. (Para 2) |
| 2. allegations of cheating and forgery not established. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. state's opposition and appeal against quashing. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. no allegations substantiate the charges against petitioners. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. criminal proceedings quashed; writ petition allowed. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.551 of 2020 and the said case is now pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention along with the accused persons being the vendors of the land, the petitioner no.1 got executed sale-deed bearing no. 131 dated 31.01.2020, petitioner no.2 got executed sale deed bearing no. 70 dated 21.01.2020 and the petitioner no.3 got executed sale deed bearing no. 71 d
The absence of allegations substantiating criminal offences necessitates quashing of the FIR, thereby preventing abuse of legal process.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases, as outlined in the judgment of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992).
Advance payment for land sale agreement amid pending suit does not constitute entrustment; non-execution of deed due to injunction not criminal breach of trust or cheating without initial deception.
The court ruled that where allegations do not substantiate criminal offenses, particularly under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC, the FIR is quashed to prevent abuse of legal process.
Accused not party to sale agreement or recipient of advance money, with only telephonic facilitation by co-accused, cannot face prosecution for cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest i....
Criminal prosecution for breach of contract requires evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception; mere allegations of non-fulfillment do not suffice to establish offences under IPC sections rela....
High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash proceedings via mini-trial or evidence appreciation; magistrate cannot alter sections at cognizance on charge sheet, only at charge framing.
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....
Judicial orders in criminal cases cannot be quashed under Article 226 if the charge sheet is not challenged, and the allegations warrant a trial.
The main legal point established is the need for a fair and thorough investigation in cases involving property disputes and allegations of fraudulent activities.
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
