Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CHITTARANJAN DASH
Krushna Chandra Palai – Appellant
Versus
Sriram Cashew, Prop: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of the sessions judge's order (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis on elements of cheating and performance (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. affirmation of the sessions judge's order (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
1. By means of the present application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Revision No.5 of 2022, whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in I.C.C. Case No.256 of 2021, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 419 /420/424 of the IPC against the Opposite Party pursuant to the Protest Petition filed by the Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the closure of investigation in connection with Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.333 of 2019.
On 07.07.2017, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party personally and requested him to refund the said amount. However, the Opposite Party not only refused but allegedly abused the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Police for redressal of his grievance, but as the Police did not register the complaint and advise
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is evidence of dishonest intent from the outset of the transaction.
Criminal prosecution for breach of contract requires proof of mens rea; subsequent contradictory actions may establish potential dishonesty necessitating a trial.
Disputes arising from financial transactions, lacking evidence of fraudulent intent, cannot suffice for charges of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely due to the existence of civil remedies; prima facie evidence of criminal offenses warrants trial.
Non-performance of contractual obligations does not constitute criminal cheating without evidence of fraudulent intent; disputes of civil nature should be resolved through civil remedies.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC unless fraudulent intention is established at the time of the promise.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of establishing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the beginning of a transaction to constitute the offence of cheating under ....
Breach of contract via delayed sub-standard supply not offences under Sections 406/420 IPC without initial deception or property entrustment.
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
