IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Sanjeev Kumar – 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 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1827 of 2019, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XXII, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 417/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners inducted the complainant as tenant in their shop by representing the complainant that the said shop is a commercial property. The complainant continued in possession of the said property by running his business but ultimately the petitioners did not give any documents to show that the property concerned is a commercial property and as the complainant stopped payment of the rent of the said shop, the petitioner no.2 along with her brother and others threatened the complainant of dire consequences u
A breach of contract cannot constitute cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
To constitute offences under Sections 420, 323, and 504 IPC, essential ingredients of intent, injury, or insult must be established at the onset; mere breach of contract or abusive language without t....
For an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be deception at inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to establish criminal liability.
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....
Breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless dishonest intention and deception existed from transaction's inception; civil disputes cannot be criminalized without initial fraud.
Under Section 482 CrPC, High Court cannot quash cheating proceedings via mini-trial or on defence pleas; deception from inception essential, oral evidence suffices for payment proof, civil caution in....
To substantiate IPC offences, essential elements must be satisfied; mere allegations are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
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....
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 ....
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.
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.