Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Sk. Asiruddin, son of Late Sk. Rahamatulla – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of the criminal proceeding. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue against allegations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. lack of evidence for section 406 ipc. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. no deception for section 420 ipc. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. no allegations for causing hurt under section 323 ipc. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. no intentional insult under section 504 ipc. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. no criminal intimidation under section 506 ipc. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 9. entire proceeding quashed. (Para 18 , 19) |
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 528 of the BNSS , 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with C.C. Case No. 435 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is th
To substantiate IPC offences, essential elements must be satisfied; mere allegations are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
Quashing under CrPC Section 482 as no prima facie case for IPC Sections 406, 420, 427, 506/34 even if all allegations true, lacking initial deception, entrustment, property mischief, and intimidation....
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....
Allegations of misappropriation under IPC Sections 406 and 34 cannot proceed without evidence of entrustment and dishonest intent; mere inability to repay a loan does not constitute criminal breach o....
To establish an offense under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, it is essential to demonstrate entrustment and deception from the transaction's inception, respectively; lack of these elements leads to the qu....
To constitute offences under Sections 420, 323, and 504 IPC, essential ingredients of intent, injury, or insult must be established at the onset; mere breach of contract or abusive language without t....
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.
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.
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
