Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Harish Kumar, son of late Chhavi Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of criminal proceedings on land sale. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments about breach of contract versus criminal cheating. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's conclusion on abuse of process. (Para 8 , 14) |
| 4. analysis of allegations against the petitioners. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. final order quashing criminal proceedings. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the complainant was sold a land inter alia in the presence of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 disclosed that the said land stands recorded in the name of his father and it was agreed to between the parties that the consideration amount of the said land would be Rs.2,00,000/-. Then both the petitioners along with the co-accused persons, came to the house of the complainant and showed him the land. The complainant purchased the land on 16.05.2012 on paying Rs.2,00,000/- but after eight years in 2020, he came to know that the petitioners have sold the land other than the one showed to the complainant. Two of the accused did not allow the demarcation of the land by the Government Amin and threatened the complainant. The complainant earlier lodg
Criminal prosecution for breach of contract requires evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception; mere allegations of non-fulfillment do not suffice to establish offences under IPC sections rela....
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.
Sale of undivided joint property share by co-sharers without dishonest intention at inception does not constitute cheating; third-party complainant lacks standing absent purchaser grievance; proceedi....
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....
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....
Fraudulent inducement and dishonesty must be established to constitute cheating under IPC; a mere breach of contract does not suffice.
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
