Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Basant Narayan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda in connection with Complaint Case No. 164 of 2023 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in capacity of In-charge principal of SBSSPSJ college, Pathargama engaged the complainant firstly for income tax work and then for EPF work. Admittedly, the payment regarding the income tax work has been made and some of the payment regarding the EPF work as also been done but a sum of Rs.15.90 lakhs remain due and payable to the petitioner.
4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has found prima facie case for the offences
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.
To constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust, there must be deceit at inception or dishonest misappropriation; mere breach of contract without such elements does not attract IPC provisions.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
Intention to cheat must be established from the inception of the transaction; absence of mens rea negates the offence under Section 420 IPC.
Mere loan default does not amount to cheating under IPC unless fraudulent intent is proven from the inception of the transaction.
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....
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....
The absence of initial deception or property entrustment negates offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under IPC sections 420 and 406.
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
