Back
SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Kulwant Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing of fir. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner argues lack of legal debt. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observes complainant's failure to prove case. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. elements of cheating under section 420 ipc. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. high court's inherent power to quash. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. intention must be present for cheating. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. no evidence of dishonest intention by petitioner. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. complaints lack authenticity and credibility. (Para 25) |
| 9. fir quashed based on insufficient grounds. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Moudgil, J.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.357 dated 28.11.2017 under Sections 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Division A, Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant advanced friendly loan of an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- on his request to the petitioner and in lieu thereof, the complainant took 3 blank and duly signed cheques as security/guarantee. The petitioner returned an amount of Rs.1 lakh in January, 2017 and assured to return the remaining amount. No cheques were returned by the complainant to the petitioner. T
The intention to cheat is the key element in establishing the offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC, and evidence is crucial in determining guilt or innocence.
A loan default does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses.
Criminal prosecution for cheating requires evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception of the transaction; mere inability to repay a loan does not suffice.
(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....
A mere inability to repay a loan does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the inception of the transaction.
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
