Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Sudha Choudhary, Wife of Bimal Kumar Choudhary – 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 BNSS, 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in Cr. Revision no. 87 of 2024 by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder, learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the revision application which was preferred against the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by learned JMFC, Dhanbad and also prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by JMFC, Dhanbad in C.P. case no. 14686 of 2023 by which, learned Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offences and dismissed the C.P. case no. 14686 of 2023 under Section 203 of the CrPC.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner filed Complaint Case no. 14686 of 2023 in the court of learned JMFC, alleging therein that the opp. Party no. 2 herein, who was proposed accused person of the complaint, has taken a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainant with the promise of alluring returns but did not repay the loan. Learned JMFC considered that this is a simple case of advance of loan and the
Mere loan default does not amount to cheating under IPC unless fraudulent intent is proven from the inception of the transaction.
Inability to repay a loan does not constitute criminal cheating without evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the transaction's inception.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
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.
Mere breach of friendly loan repayment or promised work without dishonest intention from inception or entrustment does not constitute offences under Sections 406 or 420 IPC; remains civil dispute.
For an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be deception at inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to establish criminal liability.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust without evidence of initial deceptive intent or dishonest misappropriation.
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
