Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Suresh Prasad Burnwal – 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 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 14.08.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamtara, in Criminal Revision No. 05 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Jamtara, has affirmed the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 282 of 2019. Prayer has also been made to quash and set aside the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 282 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara dismissed the protest-cum-complaint of the petitioner on the ground that no prima facie is made out.
3. The brief fact of this case is that the complainant filed a Complaint Case No. 48 of 2015; which upon being referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the police registered Jamtara P.S. Case No. 210 of 2015 but police after investigation submitted Final
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.
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
Not every breach of contract amounts to cheating, and mere retention of property does not constitute dishonest misappropriation. The essential ingredients for criminal offences under the Indian Penal....
A civil dispute arising from breach of contract does not constitute criminal offences of cheating or misappropriation under IPC without initial fraudulent intent.
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....
Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained where allegations do not demonstrate fraudulent intent or dishonest misappropriation from the inception of the transaction.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
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 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....
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
