Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Golmei Gaiphulshillu
Sunil Kumar Sethi – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary (Home) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Golmei Gaiphulshillu, J.
[1] Heard Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, learned PP appearing for the State and Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 at length.
[2] The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality, correctness and propriety in registration of the FIR with a prayer for quashing and setting aside of FIR No. 97(7)2016 of City Police Station, Imphal, Manipur dated 06.07.2016 registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under Sections 34 r/w 406, 420 and 506 of IPC even though no offence was made out.
For easy reference and for convenience, the above mentioned Sections are extracted herein below:
“406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust -
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
420. Cheating and dishonesty inducing delivery of property -
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable se
The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is established, quashing the FIR due to lack of supporting evidence....
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.
The allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under IPC Sections 406 and 420, as they lack essential elements of criminal intent, reflecting a civil dispute instead.
The mere failure to pay for goods in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under IPC without evidence of dishonest intention.
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
