Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Md. Anwar @ Mo. Anwar Miya, s/o. late Habib Miya @ late Mo. Habib Miya – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. section 482 crpc petition to quash complaint proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations of loan breach, assault; prima facie offences found. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. civil loan dispute, delay, no entrustment or injury warrants quashing. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. materials sufficient for sections 406 and 323 ipc. (Para 8) |
| 5. no section 406 without initial dishonest intent or entrustment. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. no section 323 absent bodily injury allegations. (Para 11) |
| 7. quash proceedings as abuse of process of law. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1223 of 2018, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the petitioner having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petition
Quashing under CrPC Section 482 appropriate for friendly loan non-refund between brothers lacking entrustment, initial dishonest intent, with 11-year unexplained delay and no injury details, deeming ....
A dispute over loan repayment, lacking evidence of deception or fraudulent intent, is deemed a civil matter and does not justify criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code.
Allegations must demonstrate elements of criminal offenses; lack of evidence led to quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.
Inability to repay a loan does not constitute criminal cheating without evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the transaction's inception.
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....
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
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.
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.
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
