Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Nageshwar Prasad Verma – 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 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No. 343 of 2018, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Girdih has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is fixed for evidence before charge and the next date is fixed on 24.01.2026.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no.1 is the brother of the opposite party no.2-complainant and the petitioner no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 were occupying the joint property of the opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.1. There was a panchayati where it was decided that upon taking Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner no.1 by the opposite party no.2, the petitioners will vacate the house and even though the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner
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.
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.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
Intention to cheat must be established from the inception of the transaction; absence of mens rea negates the offence under Section 420 IPC.
Allegations of misappropriation under IPC Sections 406 and 34 cannot proceed without evidence of entrustment and dishonest intent; mere inability to repay a loan does not constitute criminal breach o....
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....
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust without evidence of initial deceptive intent or dishonest misappropriation.
Mere loan default does not amount to cheating under IPC unless fraudulent intent is proven from the inception of the transaction.
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
