Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Savitri Ratho
Prasant Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Savitri Ratho, J.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banpur (in short “JMFC”) in G.R. Case No.58 of 2019 arising out of Banpur Police Station Case No.42 of 2019, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section s 420 , 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”).
This case has been filed in this Court on 25.06.2024 and numbered on 07.05.2024 by which time accused statement had already been recorded. Interim order granted on 07.08.2024 permitting the petitioner to pray for an adjournment in the trial Court has been vacated on 11.03.2025.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The allegation in brief as per the First Information Report (in short “FIR”) is that the informant had paid Rs.3,80,000/- to the accused for the purchase of a generator. He had promised to repay the same within a month. But as he did not return the amount, there was a settlement with the mediation of Banpur Police on 14.06.2017 and the accused promised to execute a registered sale deed at the Banpur Registration Office. He did not do so but abused the informant in obs
The distinction between breach of contract and criminal cheating requires proof of fraudulent intent at the transaction's inception.
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offenses, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of criminal intent to sustain charges of cheating.
Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is established from the outset, as per Section 420 IPC.
The court quashed proceedings for cheating and intimidation, finding no prima facie case due to lack of dishonest intention and insufficient evidence.
The Court held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding if it is found that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Co....
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of elements such as fraudulent inducement and dishonest misappropriation can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings under....
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
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
