Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Shah Araf Equbal, son of Late Shah Muhammad Halim – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to quash cbt and cheating charges in land sale advance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners deny offences; state opposes quashing at nascent stage. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. sale advance not entrusted property; non-refund not criminal breach of trust. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. cheating needs initial deception, absent against petitioners. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. proceedings quashed as no offences disclosed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
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 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.557 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316 (2) and 318 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the brother of the petitioners along with these two persons and another person namely Sah Alim Iqbal @ Sona and other persons took Rs.1,31,250/- from the informant for selling their land but since there was a suit pending
Advance payment for land sale agreement amid pending suit does not constitute entrustment; non-execution of deed due to injunction not criminal breach of trust or cheating without initial deception.
Essential elements for criminal breach of trust include entrustment and dishonest intention; mere breach of contract does not establish criminal culpability.
A breach of contract does not automatically constitute the offence of cheating under the IPC; intention to defraud must be established from the inception of the agreement.
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 ....
The mere non-execution of a land sale agreement does not constitute criminal misappropriation or cheating; these offences require proof of initial deception or entrustment, rendering the case a civil....
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....
Continuance of criminal proceedings based on civil disputes, without established fraudulent intent, is an abuse of process of law.
Fraudulent intent must be established for criminal liability in financial transactions, distinguishing between civil breaches of contract and criminal offenses like cheating.
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
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
