Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Manish Karsija – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint under 420/406 ipc for stalled flats project. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. advance plus interest fully refunded to complainant. (Para 5 , 12) |
| 3. no entrustment of sale advance under section 406. (Para 6 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. no vicarious liability for uninvolved nominee director. (Para 7 , 9 , 13) |
| 5. no cheating absent initial dishonest intent. (Para 8 , 11 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. offences made out if allegations true. (Para 10) |
| 7. proceedings quashed qua petitioner as abuse. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
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 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case C/1 No.1750 of 2017 including the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant booked two flats in a project o
Advance payments for sale agreements not entrustment for breach of trust; cheating needs dishonest intent at inception; nominee directors not vicariously liable without personal role; proceedings qua....
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is deception at inception; individual liability requires evidence of active role and criminal intent.
The judgment established that not every breach of contract amounts to a criminal offence and emphasized the importance of the presence of deception and dishonesty at the inception of a transaction to....
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
Advance payment under oral sale agreement not entrustment for criminal breach of trust; mere failure to execute sale and selling to third party not cheating absent dishonest intention from inception.
Intention to cheat must be established from the inception of the transaction; absence of mens rea negates the offence under Section 420 IPC.
The court affirmed that without personal wrongdoing or clear involvement in company actions post-resignation, criminal liability cannot be established, and proceedings can be quashed as an abuse of p....
No offence under Sections 406/420 IPC without deception at transaction inception or entrustment with dishonest misappropriation; business account disputes civil, not criminal; proceedings quashed und....
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....
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
