IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Balmukund Pathak S/o Late Brajmohan Pathak – 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Town P.S. Case No.135 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken a friendly loan from the informant but only repaid Rs.3,00,000/- of the said loan amount but he is not repaying the rest of the loan amount. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.135 of 2021 and took up the investigation of the case and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is going on at present.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofVinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2019) 2 SCC 401 and submits that therein in the facts of that case when the dispute between the pa
Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala & Others
Reena Lata @ Rina Lata vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another
Dalip Kaur & Others vs. Jagnar Singh & Another
Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another
A dispute over loan repayment, lacking evidence of deception or fraudulent intent, is deemed a civil matter and does not justify criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code.
Inability to repay a loan does not constitute criminal cheating without evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the transaction's inception.
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial fraudulent intent; civil remedies should be pursued instead of criminal proceedings.
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....
Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a civil nature claim; prima facie evidence of criminal intent under Section 420 IPC necessitates trial.
Quashing under CrPC Section 482 appropriate for friendly loan non-refund between brothers lacking entrustment, initial dishonest intent, with 11-year unexplained delay and no injury details, deeming ....
A loan default does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses.
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against accused f....
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.