Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Arti Devi, W/o Priya Ranjan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 17.08.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Koderma whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 245 of 2017.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.2 after selling his property of 06 decimals out of the 24 decimals of land in the plot concerned; has sold another 06 decimals of land to the petitioner no.1 though the petitioner no.2 was entitled only for 06 decimals of land out of 24 decimals of the total area of the plot as per his share. The allegation against the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 is that they are the witnesses to the said sale deed executed by the petitioner no.2 in favour of the petitioner no.1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that first the complainant filed Complaint Case No. 583 of 2014 and the same was referred to p
No charge of inducement or agreement suffices for Sections 420 and 120B IPC; allegations do not meet essential elements, leading to quashing of the cognizance order.
To establish an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be delivery of property to the person deceived; mere allegations without this element do not suffice.
To substantiate IPC offences, essential elements must be satisfied; mere allegations are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
Not every breach of contract amounts to cheating, and mere retention of property does not constitute dishonest misappropriation. The essential ingredients for criminal offences under the Indian Penal....
To establish an offense under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, it is essential to demonstrate entrustment and deception from the transaction's inception, respectively; lack of these elements leads to the qu....
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....
Quashing under CrPC Section 482 as no prima facie case for IPC Sections 406, 420, 427, 506/34 even if all allegations true, lacking initial deception, entrustment, property mischief, and intimidation....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is evidence of dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction.
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
