Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
R.K. Singh @ Rajiv Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.142 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner who is an associate of the co-accused namely Alok Kumar contacted the informant over the phone to purchase the land and accompanied him to the office of the co- accused Alok Kumar. The further allegation of the informant is that the said Alok Kumar showed the documents of the certain land to the informant. There was an agreement between the informant and the co- accused Alok Kumar for purchasing of 4 decimals of land by the informant at the rate of Rs.8 lakhs/decimal. The informant paid Rs.13,15,000/-, but because of delay in registration of the sale deed, co- accused Alok Kumar entered into an agreement with the informant in which the petitioner
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.
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....
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....
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
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
