Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Malay Dutta age about 55 years, son of Sri Jiban Kumar Dutta – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
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 First Information Report registered as Sitaramdera P.S. Case no.45 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.576 of 2015 including charge sheet no.229 of 2021 dated 12.10.2021 and the order taking cognizance dated 12.04.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner entered into an oral agreement with the informant to sell a flat, the informant paid Rs.15 lakhs but the petitioner did not handover the flat to the informant but undertook to pay Rs.30 lakhs instead of Rs.15 lakhs taken by the informant, to compensate the loss of the informant and entered into an agreement in this respect, but actually returned only Rs.2,50,000/- and did not pay the rest amount. In the complaint it has categorically been mention
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.
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 ....
Not every breach of contract amounts to cheating or criminal breach of trust; intention of deception at the inception is crucial for such offences.
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 court held that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the necessity of fraudulent intent from inception.
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
