Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Basanti Devi W/o Devi Dayal Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations involve contract and land sale. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners claim allegations are false. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal principles on breach of contract. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. no sufficient evidence for alleged offenses. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. criminal proceedings quashed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
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 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Basia P.S. Case No.35 of 2024 registered under Sections 341, 323, 406, 420, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 entered into an agreement for sale with the informant, to sale her 40 decimals of land at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per decimal and took an advance of Rs.5 lakhs in which agreement, the petitioner no.2, who is the son of the petitioner no.1 was the witness. The petitioner no.1 also took a cheque of Rs.3,80,000/- which was to be encashed by the petitioner no.1 at
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....
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
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....
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 ....
Advance payment under oral sale agreement not entrustment for criminal breach of trust; mere failure to execute sale and selling to third party not cheating absent dishonest intention from inception.
Continuance of criminal proceedings based on civil disputes, without established fraudulent intent, is an abuse of process of law.
The court ruled that where allegations do not substantiate criminal offenses, particularly under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC, the FIR is quashed to prevent abuse of legal process.
To substantiate IPC offences, essential elements must be satisfied; mere allegations are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
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
