Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Krishna Kumar Marandi @ Krishna Marandi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. Since, both these cases have been filed with the same prayer arising out the same case, hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the same prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.2800 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
4. The allegation against the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.1776 of 2020 namely Krishna Kumar Marandi @ Krishna Marandi is that he being the Circle Officer, Nirsa and the petitioner of Cr.M.P No.2713 of 2019 being the Block Development Officer, Kaliasol in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons; without any no objection certificate furnished by the villagers concerned got constructed one
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....
The mere breach of contract does not establish a case for criminal offences of cheating or breach of trust without evidence of deception or proper entrustment.
To substantiate IPC offences, essential elements must be satisfied; mere allegations are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
A civil dispute arising from breach of contract does not constitute criminal offences of cheating or misappropriation under IPC without initial fraudulent intent.
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.
Intention to cheat must be established from the inception of the transaction; absence of mens rea negates the offence under Section 420 IPC.
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....
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....
Breach of contract alone does not constitute cheating without initial deception; essential elements of the IPC offences were not established.
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
