Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Imagine entrusting your hard-earned money to someone for a promising investment, only for them not to return it. Frustrated, you lodge an FIR under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But can such cases always proceed criminally? Courts often quash these FIRs if the dispute smells more like a civil breach of contract than outright fraud.
This post explores a common query: Search me a Caselaw where FIR is Lodged under Section 420 or 406 and 120B for Taking Money from a Person for Investment and Not Returning it. We'll dive into legal principles, key judgments, and insights from various sources, highlighting when proceedings are typically quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of process. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
To invoke criminal liability under these sections, prosecutors must prove specific elements:
Courts repeatedly stress: a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient and a person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for offence of cheating. Vijay Kumar Ghai VS State Of West Bengal - 2022 4 Supreme 42 Without initial criminal intent, these disputes are deemed civil. State Of Maharashtra VS Sayed Mohammed Masood - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1377Arshad Neyaz Khan VS State of Jharkhand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1730
Indian courts, exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, frequently quash FIRs in investment non-return cases lacking criminal hallmarks. Here's a breakdown from prominent judgments:
These cases align on a pivotal ratio: Mere breach of obligation or non-return of investment funds does not trigger criminality without prima facie proof of mens rea (guilty mind) from day one. Vijay Kumar Ghai VS State Of West Bengal - 2022 4 Supreme 42Arshad Neyaz Khan VS State of Jharkhand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1730State Of Maharashtra VS Sayed Mohammed Masood - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1377
Further precedents reinforce this trend:
These examples illustrate a pattern: Courts scrutinize FIRs rigorously, quashing when rooted in commercial disagreements rather than crime.
Investment disputes often blur lines:- Civil Indicators: Breach of agreement, market losses, delayed returns without initial deceit.- Criminal Triggers: Pre-planned fraud, false promises known to be impossible, diversion of funds with concealment.
Courts have consistently acknowledged that non-payment or breach of contractual obligations alone do not amount to criminal offences, and pursuing such disputes criminally constitutes an abuse of process. Vijay Kumar Ghai VS State Of West Bengal - 2022 4 Supreme 42Arshad Neyaz Khan VS State of Jharkhand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1730State Of Maharashtra VS Sayed Mohammed Masood - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1377
In one instance, a charge sheet under 406/420/120B was challenged for lacking ingredients: The allegations narrated in the complaint do not comprise the ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 406. Srivardhan Daga vs State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Online)(HC) 12480
Not all cases are quashed. Courts may allow continuation if:- Investigation uncovers initial dishonest intent (e.g., fabricated investment schemes). Vijay Kumar Ghai VS State Of West Bengal - 2022 4 Supreme 42- Proof of conspiracy via communications or multiple victims. Arshad Neyaz Khan VS State of Jharkhand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1730- Clear entrustment, like handing over funds for specific management with fiduciary duty. Madanlal Pareek son of Shri Rambakshram VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 1022
The existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings if criminal ingredients are satisfied.
Before initiating criminal proceedings... sufficient prima facie evidence of dishonest intent or conspiracy should be established.
In summary, while frustration over lost investments is valid, courts protect against criminal misuse of civil disputes. Reference these principles and cases for informed decisions, but engage legal experts for tailored guidance.
References:1. Vijay Kumar Ghai VS State Of West Bengal - 2022 4 Supreme 42: Quashing for lack of intent.2. Arshad Neyaz Khan VS State of Jharkhand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1730: Breach alone not criminal.3. State Of Maharashtra VS Sayed Mohammed Masood - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1377: No misappropriation, no offense.4. Additional: Madanlal Pareek son of Shri Rambakshram VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 1022, Srivardhan Daga vs State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Online)(HC) 12480, GANDHIMATHI A vs STATE BY - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 43542, Sarita vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, SUNEEL GALGOTIA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2015 Supreme(All) 1158.
#FIRQuashing #IPC420 #InvestmentFraud
Case No.288/2021 under Sections 120B/420/406/468 of IPC with the same allegations as narrated by the respondent No.2/informant. Thus, the FIRs lodged by the respondent No.2/informant on 28.05.2021 and Munindra Saikia on 26.05.2021 are totally identical. ... In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for q....
420 and/or 406 of the I.P.C. is made out—the controversy between the parties relates to non-payment of agreed settlement amount ... documents that it is a case of purely civil nature, arising out of contracts between the parties and no criminal offence under Section ... Since the basic ingredients of Section 406 and/or 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied in the present case, t....
The brief facts of the instant case are that the opposite party no.2 has lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 160 of 2018 under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C. alleging therein that the applicant herein is the Director/proprietor of M/s LDK Share and Securities Pvt. ... Rather, the prosecution has been lodged for the offences under Section 409 and 420 of I....
At page No.2 para No.2 Offence punishable under Sections is wrongly mentioned as 406, 420, 120B R/w 34 of IPC and Section 76 r/w 79 and the same is corrected as Section "420 of IPC and Section 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982". ... The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under Sections #HL_....
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case under Section 420 of IPC or Section 406 of IPC is made out. No ingredient is available either in the FIR or in the materials so far collected by the investigating authority on the basis of which the charge sheet has been filed. ... Only for the reason that the money taken as investment under the terms of the ag....
FIR No. 50/2018 registered at PS Gurugram, Haryana under Sections 406/420/34 IPC and FIR No. 74/2019 registered at PS EOW, Delhi under Sections 406/420/120B IPC. 10. ... Sections 420/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). ... As informed to this Court, the petitioner is previously involved in two other cases of similar nat....
The law clearly recognizes a difference between simple advancement/investment of money and entrustment of money. ... It is his contention that if the matter is allowed to proceed, it is certain that it would lead to conviction of the petitioner under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC. Therefore, this Court ought not to exercise its jurisdiction under Section#HL_E....
As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. ... Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed. ... ORDER The applicants have filed the present M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of F.I.R#HL_....
The Charge Sheet was submitted only against the petitioner under Sections 406 /420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and the Learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406 /420/120B of the Indian ... The allegations narrated in the complaint do not comprise the ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 406#HL_....
The learned Senior Counsel submits that taking the allegations at their face value, they do not disclose commission of the alleged offences of Sections 420, 409, 406, 462, 206, 217, 201, 34, 120B and 37 of the IPC. ... , 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603. ... , 120B, 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, #HL_STA....
3. The respondent-wife lodged one after another three FIRs against the appellant; FIR No. 101/16 for offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC at Mahila Police Station Udaipur, FIR No. 354/16 for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 120B IPC at Police Station Sukher, Udaipur and FIR No. 255/16 for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120B IPC at Police Station, Govardhan Vilas, Udaipur. The respondent-wife also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking....
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had lodged FIR against the complainant for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court gravely erred to frame charge for offence under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner upon the complaint filed by the investigating officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the said FIR lodged by the pet....
Keshrisinghpur under section 420, 406 and 120B IPC - result- FR given for the reason FIR lodged under misconception dt.26.05.2011. FR accepted by court and acquittal on dt.15.10.2011.
A FIR is stated to be lodged for the offences punishable under section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A FIR is stated to be lodged for the offences punishable under section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4 has sought to make a distinction between the allegations made against a company and personal involvement of respondent no. 4 has sought to make a distinction between the allegations made against a com....
On 21.10.1995 the aforesaid vendors through their Advocates sent notice to Society reminding it that cheques issued by it had bounced due to insufficiency of funds. In the said FIR the Secretary of Society as well as one Avdesh Narayan Rai, Vice-President, were named as accused. Thereafter FIR was lodged under Section 406, 420, 120B IPC at Police Station Siwan on 22.11.1995. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against both of them.
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
