Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Satyendra Nath Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.269 of 2024 including the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the brother of the complainant, obtained several signatures on several documents and blank papers with a promise to give her share after documentation but did not give her share. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses found prima facie case as already indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofJupally Lakshmikantha Reddy vs. State of Andhra Prad
To constitute cheating under IPC Section 420, there must be a deceitful representation from the outset and an induced transfer of property; failing to deliver on familial promises does not satisfy th....
Cheating under Section 420 IPC requires deception from transaction's inception; later breach insufficient. No offence under Section 406 IPC without entrustment and dishonest misappropriation.
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....
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
A loan default does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses.
Fraudulent inducement and dishonesty must be established to constitute cheating under IPC; a mere breach of contract does not suffice.
Under Section 482 CrPC, High Court cannot quash cheating proceedings via mini-trial or on defence pleas; deception from inception essential, oral evidence suffices for payment proof, civil caution in....
Distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating and held that breach of contract could not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, but fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis ....
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
