Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K.PANIGRAHI
Madhab Bhutia – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of loan dispute and fir details. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against abuse of criminal law. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. essential ingredients for offence under section 420. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. definition and requirements for cheating under ipc. (Para 8 , 9 , 16 , 19) |
| 5. quashing of fir due to lack of deceit evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeeb K.Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioners, in the present petition, seek quashing of the impugned FIR in Talcher P.S. Case No.1042, dated 25.09.2025, registered under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Nabakishore Sahoo, Ex-Senior Manager, Orissa Gramya Bank, Talcher Branch, along with the present petitioners, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1870 of 2025, now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
i. Pursuant to an application dated 23.01.2013, a housing loan to the tune of Rs. 15.00 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners by Orissa Gramya Bank, Talcher Branch, vide sanction endorsement dated 28.12.2013. Out of the sanctioned amount, a sum of Rs. 9.00 lakhs was disbursed in phases during the period from 03.01.
The absence of fraudulent intention at the inception of a transaction negates charges of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offences.
Loan account adjustment disputes are civil, not criminal under cheating or breach of trust; requires dishonest intent from inception or entrustment, absent here; cannot invoke criminal process for ci....
While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against accused f....
FIR quashed in loan-mortgage dispute lacking dishonest intent at inception or entrustment; 8-year delay, counterblast after civil suit render proceedings abuse of process, purely civil matter.
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....
A mere breach of contract does not preclude a finding of criminal cheating; fraud must be established at the agreement's inception.
(1) Dishonest inducement is sine qua non to attract provisions of Sections 415 and 420 of IPC.(2) Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying....
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
