Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Vameshwar Prasad Singh S/o Late Rajendra Narayan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of allegations in the case. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on the lack of offenses established. (Para 3 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. citing precedents and established legal principles. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. findings of the court on quashing the criminal proceedings. (Para 11 , 14 , 18) |
| 5. settled law on cheating and breach of contract. (Para 12) |
| 6. final order of quashing the proceeding. (Para 19 , 20) |
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, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Giridih Nagar P.S. Case No.37 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners entered into an agreement for sale with the informant, took an advance and thereafter also took some more money but subsequently they entered into an agreeme
Continuance of criminal proceedings based on civil disputes, without established fraudulent intent, is an abuse of process of law.
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
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 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....
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....
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....
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....
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....
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
