Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Shyam Bihari, son of Mahavir Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of forgery, cheating, breach of trust by fake tsm claims. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. proceedings frivolous; no cheating without initial deception. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. investigation confirms offences; no quashing pre-trial. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. no mini-trial under 482 crpc; magistrate cannot alter charges at cognizance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. petition dismissed; not fit for quashing. (Para 15 , 16) |
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 CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. case no. 94 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. case no. 1112 of 2022 whereby and where under, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar based on the charge sheet submitted by the police in the case, has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC inter alia against the petitioners.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners along with the co-accused of the case, some
High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash proceedings via mini-trial or evidence appreciation; magistrate cannot alter sections at cognizance on charge sheet, only at charge framing.
Quashing under Section 482 CrPC denied where cheating allegations show deception from inception, accused absconding, charge sheet suppressed, and civil recovery co-exists without barring criminal pro....
The court established that allegations of cheating and forgery require a clear demonstration of fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction, and that the existence of a civil remedy does not pre....
A legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the complainant had locus standi to set the law in motion.
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
