Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Jitendra Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lower courts dismissed complaint lacking offence ingredients. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties dispute allegations of cheating and entrustment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. cheating requires deception from transaction inception. (Para 7) |
| 4. no prima facie case; quashing petition dismissed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.04.2023, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in the Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision; which was directed against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 1692 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.
3. The brief facts of the case is that theallegation against the opposite party no.2 herein is that he gave a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner and also took possession of original sale deed of the pe
Cheating under Section 420 IPC requires deception from transaction's inception; later breach insufficient. No offence under Section 406 IPC without entrustment and dishonest misappropriation.
To constitute cheating under IPC Section 420, there must be a deceitful representation from the outset and an induced transfer of property; failing to deliver on familial promises does not satisfy th....
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....
A loan default does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses.
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
Breach of contract alone does not constitute cheating without initial deception; essential elements of the IPC offences were not established.
Mere loan default does not amount to cheating under IPC unless fraudulent intent is proven from the inception of the transaction.
Mere breach of friendly loan repayment or promised work without dishonest intention from inception or entrustment does not constitute offences under Sections 406 or 420 IPC; remains civil dispute.
To constitute offences under Sections 420, 323, and 504 IPC, essential ingredients of intent, injury, or insult must be established at the onset; mere breach of contract or abusive language without t....
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
