IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Binod Kumar S/o Late Braj Kishore Prasad – 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 the prayer to quash and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 05.08.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.3729 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, being a developer approached the complainant to develop his land but did not develop his land and by deceiving with dishonest and fraudulent intention made the complainant to part with his original title documents of the land, under the guise of using the same for the purpose of obtaining a sanction map for construction of the building over the said land, but even then the petitioner stopped construction and upon repeated demand of the complainant, the petitioner has not given the same to the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies
Bimlendra Kumar Choudhary & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another
Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr.
Fraudulent inducement and dishonesty must be established to constitute cheating under IPC; a mere breach of contract does not suffice.
Breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless deception and dishonest intention at inception. Advance payment for property sale is not entrustment; mere non-execution of sale deed without mi....
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....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
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....
A civil dispute arising from breach of contract does not constitute criminal offences of cheating or misappropriation under IPC without initial fraudulent intent.
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....
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
To constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust, there must be deceit at inception or dishonest misappropriation; mere breach of contract without such elements does not attract IPC provisions.
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.
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.