IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J
Rajeev Kumar Agarwalla, s/o Kailash Prasad Agarwalla – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 286 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code .
3. The brief fact of the case is that the co-accused-Raj Kumar Choudhary cheated and thereby induced the informant to part with Rs. 6,85,94,073/- by enticing and alluring the informant and his associates by making them invest huge amount of money with Yash Alloys Private Limited and the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the original owner of Yash Alloys Private Limited which has been taken over by the Punjab National Bank.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naresh Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0193/2024 that High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceeding which are essentially of a civil nature. It
The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner due to insufficient allegations to constitute offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420.
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 ....
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 necessity of proving fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
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 judgment established that not every breach of contract amounts to a criminal offence and emphasized the importance of the presence of deception and dishonesty at the inception of a transaction to....
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
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....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there is an intention to deceive from the inception of the agreement; allegations of insult and intimidation must meet specific legal thre....
The court affirmed that without personal wrongdoing or clear involvement in company actions post-resignation, criminal liability cannot be established, and proceedings can be quashed as an abuse of p....
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.