Back
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Sunil Kumar Sharma, son of Bablu Lal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under section 482 of cr.p.c. and facts of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. citing of case law regarding criminal liability versus civil disputes. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of deception as an essential element for section 420 ipc. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. lack of allegations of deception prevents criminal liability. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion quashing criminal proceedings. (Para 13 , 14) |
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 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1666 of 2021 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant placed an order for supply of face mask worth Rs.11,02,500/- but the petitioner supplied the same showing value of the prod
For an offence under Section 420 IPC, essential deception must exist from the transaction's inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to constitute cheating.
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 via delayed sub-standard supply not offences under Sections 406/420 IPC without initial deception or property entrustment.
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....
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.
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.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
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....
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.
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
