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 :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
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 proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 07.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan in connection with Complaint Case No.596 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
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
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....
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 ....
Accused not party to sale agreement or recipient of advance money, with only telephonic facilitation by co-accused, cannot face prosecution for cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest i....
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....
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
