IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Ajay Mahtha @ Ajay Kumar Mahatha – 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 the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chas P.S. Case No.373 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of this case is still going and the charge-sheet has not yet been submitted. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner took Rs.11,00,000/- as advance to sell the land for Rs.28,65,000/- and, thereafter, he also took Rs.4,00,000/- in cash for construction of boundary wall over the land to be sold and when the informant insisted for construction of the boundary wall, the petitioner returned Rs.4,00,000/- to the informant and told him to construct the boundary wall himself but as yet he has not executed the sale deed and he is delaying the same on one pretext or the other.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon th
Saloni Salvi Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another
Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another
Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
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....
Payment of advance does not imply entrustment necessary for misappropriation under IPC, and cheating requires initial deception, which was lacking in the case.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is initial deception; mere non-payment does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
Inability to repay a loan does not constitute criminal cheating without evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the transaction's inception.
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....
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
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....
Fraudulent inducement and dishonesty must be established to constitute cheating under IPC; a mere breach of contract does not suffice.
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.
Failure to honour land sale agreement, with buyer aware of tenancy restrictions and advance returned, does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest intention at inception ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.