Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Maharshi Dr. J. Jahanwi, s/o. late Bhulkan Sah – 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 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2022 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar dismissed the criminal revision which was directed against the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar in connection with Complaint Case No. 207 of 2019, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner who is the complainant of Complaint Case No. 207 of 2019 filed the complaint alleging that the opposite party no.2 took a friendly loan of Rs.3,000/- to meet his expenses and promised to get it adjusted against wages but he did not work as a mason nor refunded the amount and threatened to implicate the petitioner in offences punishable under the panel provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. As from
Mere breach of friendly loan repayment or promised work without dishonest intention from inception or entrustment does not constitute offences under Sections 406 or 420 IPC; remains civil dispute.
Mere loan default does not amount to cheating under IPC unless fraudulent intent is proven from the inception of the transaction.
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.
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.
A loan default does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses.
Allegations of cheque misuse without proof of dishonest intention do not constitute offences under IPC Sections 406 or 420, leading to quashing of the cognizance order.
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.
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
