Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Deepak Sarawagi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. business partnership dispute over unpaid invoices. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. no cheating without initial deception or entrustment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. allegations suffice for s406 and s420 ipc offences. (Para 11) |
| 4. no s420 ipc without deception at transaction inception. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. no s406 ipc without entrustment and misappropriation. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
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 a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 7773 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class XXVII, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was doing business along with the complainant from
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....
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
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....
For an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be deception at inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to establish criminal liability.
Breach of contract via delayed sub-standard supply not offences under Sections 406/420 IPC without initial deception or property entrustment.
For an offence under Section 420 IPC, essential deception must exist from the transaction's inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to constitute cheating.
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.
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
