Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Ram Binod Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations against the petitioners and factual background. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. key legal argument regarding absence of deceptive intent. (Para 5 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. observations on the allegations of offences under ipc. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. determination of constitution of offences under ipc. (Para 16 , 20) |
| 5. final ruling and order of quashing the fir. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered as Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.459 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 being the Chairman, petitioner No.2 being the then Chief Executive Officer and the petitioner No.3 being the present Chief Executive Officer of Mithila Grih Nirman Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, VI of
The court ruled that where allegations do not substantiate criminal offenses, particularly under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC, the FIR is quashed to prevent abuse of legal process.
Criminal prosecution for breach of contract requires evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception; mere allegations of non-fulfillment do not suffice to establish offences under IPC sections rela....
No offences under IPC 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34 against petitioner absent forgery, entrustment, or initial deception allegations despite associate role and witnessing agreement; FIR quashed under C....
The mere non-execution of a land sale agreement does not constitute criminal misappropriation or cheating; these offences require proof of initial deception or entrustment, rendering the case a civil....
Quashing under Section 482 CrPC not warranted in cheating cases with deception at inception inducing parting with money, confirmed by police charge-sheet; Magistrate cannot alter sections at cognizan....
Failure to honour land sale agreement, with buyer aware of tenancy restrictions and advance returned, does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest intention at inception ....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there is an intention to deceive from the inception of the agreement; allegations of insult and intimidation must meet specific legal thre....
Continuance of criminal proceedings based on civil disputes, without established fraudulent intent, is an abuse of process of law.
Accused not party to sale agreement or recipient of advance money, with only telephonic facilitation by co-accused, cannot face prosecution for cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest i....
Breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless deception and dishonest intention at inception. Advance payment for property sale is not entrustment; mere non-execution of sale deed without mi....
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
