Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Aditya Khemka – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. commercial dispute from delayed thermometer supply (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. cheating requires deception from transaction inception (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. no 406 ipc without entrustment; civil nature prevails (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. prima facie case for 406/420 ipc exists (Para 11) |
| 5. mere supply delay insufficient for 420 ipc (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. no entrustment or misappropriation for 406 ipc (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. quash proceedings as abuse of process (Para 16 , 17) |
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 the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 6708 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner approached the complainant to sell Infrared Ther
Breach of contract via delayed sub-standard supply not offences under Sections 406/420 IPC without initial deception or property entrustment.
No offence under Sections 406/420 IPC without deception at transaction inception or entrustment with dishonest misappropriation; business account disputes civil, not criminal; proceedings quashed und....
For an offence under Section 420 IPC, essential deception must exist from the transaction's inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to constitute cheating.
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....
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception of the agreement.
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
For an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be deception at inception; mere breach of contract is insufficient to establish criminal liability.
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....
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
