Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Rashi Singh D/o Late Rabindra Kumar Singh @ Ravindra Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under 482 crpc to quash 406/420 ipc fir. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ongoing investigation; no direct payment to petitioner. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. non-party to transaction not liable for cheating. (Para 5) |
| 4. breach of contract not cheating without initial fraud. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. petitioner claims no offence; respondent seeks prosecution. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. no agreement or direct dealing; quash as abuse. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. fir quashed qua petitioner; petition allowed. (Para 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 the FIR of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 596 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of C.J.M., Deoghar.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the informant negotiated for purchase of a land with Amresh Kumar Singh and Amresh Kumar Singh facilitated the infor
Accused not party to sale agreement or recipient of advance money, with only telephonic facilitation by co-accused, cannot face prosecution for cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest i....
Quashing under Section 482 CrPC not warranted in cheating cases with deception at inception inducing parting with money, confirmed by police charge-sheet; Magistrate cannot alter sections at cognizan....
Criminal prosecution for breach of contract requires evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception; mere allegations of non-fulfillment do not suffice to establish offences under IPC sections rela....
No offences under IPC 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34 against petitioner absent forgery, entrustment, or initial deception allegations despite associate role and witnessing agreement; FIR quashed under C....
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....
Failure to honour land sale agreement, with buyer aware of tenancy restrictions and advance returned, does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest intention at inception ....
Continuance of criminal proceedings based on civil disputes, without established fraudulent intent, is an abuse of process of law.
The mere non-execution of a land sale agreement does not constitute criminal misappropriation or cheating; these offences require proof of initial deception or entrustment, rendering the case a civil....
The court ruled that where allegations do not substantiate criminal offenses, particularly under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC, the FIR is quashed to prevent abuse of legal process.
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
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
