Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Kallu @ Kallu Miyan S/o Nijam Miyan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of criminal proceeding based on allegations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the intent and presence of the petitioner. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. analysis of absence of credible accusations against the petitioner. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. conclusion quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2, yet 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 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 19.08.2025 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chhattarpur P.S. Case No.229 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1555 of 2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 351(3) & 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioner and to quash the charge sheet passed
For an offence of cheating, the accused must possess the intent to deceive from inception. Merely being related to the accused does not implicate another individual in a criminal context.
Essential elements for criminal breach of trust include entrustment and dishonest intention; mere breach of contract does not establish criminal culpability.
Economic offences involving fraudulent deception in commercial transactions differ from civil breaches; High Court declines quashing FIR where prima facie cheating and breach of trust disclosed at in....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
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.
The court affirmed that without personal wrongdoing or clear involvement in company actions post-resignation, criminal liability cannot be established, and proceedings can be quashed as an abuse of p....
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 ....
Intention to cheat must be established from the inception of the transaction; absence of mens rea negates the offence under Section 420 IPC.
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
