Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Ishaan Verma wrongly named as Ishan Sharma S/o Praveen Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Though the opposite party no.2 has appeared through a counsel but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls.
3. 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 the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance and order issuing summons dated 11.08.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No. 1515 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found that the offences punishable under Section 323/341/406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of the materials in the record and issued the summoning order.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has made the complainant a guarantor in the loan account of Shivani Devi in respect of purchasing a car after taking a loan of Rs.6,20,000/-, even though the petitioner never stood a guarantor in the said purchase and only took a solar lamp for which payment has already been made. There is
Allegations must demonstrate elements of criminal offenses; lack of evidence led to quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.
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.
Intention to cheat must be established from the inception of the transaction; absence of mens rea negates the offence under Section 420 IPC.
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 mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is deception at inception; individual liability requires evidence of active role and criminal intent.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
To substantiate IPC offences, essential elements must be satisfied; mere allegations are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
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.
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
