Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Jasbir Singh – 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.4572 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant deposited a cheque in his bank account with State Bank of India and the said cheque was not honoured; nor the cheque which he presented in his bank account was returned. On being asked by the complainant, the petitioner who was the AGM, State Bank of India and the Administrative Head of the Hatia Branch of State Bank of India, whom the complainant claims to be the branch manager, told the complainant that he does not have the cheque and he will not return the cheque concerned to the complainant. A legal notic
For offences under IPC Sections 420 and 406, there must be initial deception and property entrustment; lack of such elements results in quashing of proceedings.
The absence of initial deception or property entrustment negates offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under IPC sections 420 and 406.
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.
Breach of contract alone does not constitute cheating without initial deception; essential elements of the IPC offences were not established.
A loan default does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses.
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....
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.
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
