Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Mukesh Kumar Sharma – 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Principal of B.N.S.D.A.V Teachers’ Training College, Sirsiya, Giridih. The complainant was selected as a Lecturer in the said college at the monthly salary of Rs.35,500/- but after joining, he was given a lesser amount. He worked in the said college for twenty-seven (27) months but during that period, he was paid Rs.35,000-40,000/- only. He resigned from the college and upon meeting the petitioner, the complainant asked for the money. The petitioner refused to give any money and threatened that he would implicate the complainant in false case. The petitioner, in connivance with one Sunil Kumar Verma submitted a false complaint to the
No cheating absent deception from transaction's inception; mere salary shortfall not offence. Sections 504/506 require provocation for breach of peace or threat of injury with alarm-causing intent – ....
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.
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....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there is an intention to deceive from the inception of the agreement; allegations of insult and intimidation must meet specific legal thre....
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....
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....
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....
Breach of contract alone does not constitute cheating without initial deception; essential elements of the IPC offences were not established.
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
