Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Purabi De @ P. De – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under 482 crpc to quash cognizance order. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. co-sharers sold undivided joint family property. (Para 4) |
| 3. cheating requires dishonest intent at inception. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. suppression of facts abuses court process. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. no cheating without deceiving complainant. (Para 9) |
| 6. state argues materials show cheating offences. (Para 10) |
| 7. only purchaser prosecutes seller for land cheating. (Para 11) |
| 8. co-sharer sale valid for their undivided share. (Para 12) |
| 9. no offence; quash proceedings as process abuse. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 16.12.2022 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.6054 of 2019 by learned J.M.F.C, XXIX, Ranchi whereby and whereunder learned J.M.F.C has found prima facie case and ha
Sale of undivided joint property share by co-sharers without dishonest intention at inception does not constitute cheating; third-party complainant lacks standing absent purchaser grievance; proceedi....
Criminal prosecution for breach of contract requires evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception; mere allegations of non-fulfillment do not suffice to establish offences under IPC sections rela....
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....
Breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless deception and dishonest intention at inception. Advance payment for property sale is not entrustment; mere non-execution of sale deed without mi....
The court determined that allegations against the petitioners were devoid of any criminal basis, equating the matter to a civil dispute, thus quashing the criminal proceedings.
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is evidence of dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction.
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
