Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Louis Kujur @ Luis Kujur, Son Of Late Patras Kujur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under crpc 482 seeks quashing of cheating cognizance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. no cheating without initial deception; breach civil; threats inadequate for 504/506. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. cheating predates sale agreement; charge-sheet complies with crpc 173(2). (Para 10) |
| 4. prima facie 420 ipc made out; no charge alteration at cognizance; deny quashing. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. quashing petition dismissed as meritless. (Para 15) |
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 the entire criminal proceedings, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 227 of 2022 arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019 including the order dated 14.07.2022 passed in the said case whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 504, 379, 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being a leader of a political party after coming to know about the sufferings of the info
Quashing under Section 482 CrPC not warranted in cheating cases with deception at inception inducing parting with money, confirmed by police charge-sheet; Magistrate cannot alter sections at cognizan....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there is an intention to deceive from the inception of the agreement; allegations of insult and intimidation must meet specific legal thre....
Under Section 482 CrPC, High Court cannot quash cheating proceedings via mini-trial or on defence pleas; deception from inception essential, oral evidence suffices for payment proof, civil caution in....
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 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.
No offences under IPC 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34 against petitioner absent forgery, entrustment, or initial deception allegations despite associate role and witnessing agreement; FIR quashed under C....
Continuance of criminal proceedings based on civil disputes, without established fraudulent intent, is an abuse of process of law.
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.
No cheating absent deception from transaction's inception; mere salary shortfall not offence. Sections 504/506 require provocation for breach of peace or threat of injury with alarm-causing intent – ....
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
