Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
R.K. Singh @ Rajiv Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. alleged land fraud with forged documents and bounced cheques. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. no entrustment or initial deception against petitioner. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. common intention under section 34 implicates petitioner. (Para 8) |
| 4. no forgery or use allegations; no sections 467-471. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. section 420 requires deception from transaction inception. (Para 11) |
| 6. section 406 demands entrustment allegation. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. quash proceedings qua petitioner as process abuse. (Para 14 , 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 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
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....
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.
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 ....
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....
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....
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
