Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Vijeta Gajra VS State of NCT of Delhi...
Checking relevance for Raju Krishna Shedbalkar VS State of Karnataka...
Raju Krishna Shedbalkar VS State of Karnataka - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 883 : Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with criminal breach of trust. The essential ingredients of this offence, as interpreted by the court in the given document, are: (1) there must be entrustment of property or dominion over property, and (2) there must be dishonest misappropriation of such property. The court emphasized that mere failure to fulfill a promise or non-performance of an obligation does not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. In this case, the court found that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 405 IPC (which defines criminal breach of trust), as there was no evidence of entrustment of property or dishonest misappropriation. The judgment clarifies that for an offence under Section 406 IPC to be made out, the prosecution must prove both the entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation, and mere failure to use funds for the intended purpose, without proof of dishonest intent at the time of receipt, is insufficient.Checking relevance for Radheyshyam VS State of Rajasthan...
Radheyshyam VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 681 : Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertains to criminal breach of trust. The key parameters for this offence are: (1) the accused must have received property in a fiduciary or trust capacity; (2) there must be an entrustment of property; and (3) the accused must dishonestly misappropriate or convert the property to their own use. The court emphasized that mere non-performance of a contract does not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406, and that the absence of entrustment of property negates the essential ingredient of the offence. This principle was affirmed in the case where the FIR was quashed due to lack of essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust, reinforcing that civil disputes over contract performance should not be criminalized. The judgment serves as a landmark interpretation of Section 406 IPC, clarifying that the offence requires more than mere failure to perform a contractual obligation—it requires a specific legal duty arising from entrustment and dishonest intent.Checking relevance for Onkar Nath Mishra VS State (NCT of Delhi)...
Checking relevance for State of Punjab VS Pritam Chand...
State of Punjab VS Pritam Chand - 2009 2 Supreme 23 : Section 406 IPC deals with punishment for criminal breach of trust. The ingredients of the offence under Section 406 IPC are: (i) the accused was entrusted with property or had dominion over the property, and (ii) the accused dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property to his own use, or dishonestly used or disposed of the property, or willfully suffered any other person to do so, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the entrusted property should be dealt with, or any legal contract—express or implied—relating to the discharge of the trust. Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust, with the following ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with property or with dominion over the property, (ii) the person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property to his own use, or (b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffered any other person to do so, in violation of (i) any direction of law prescribing the mode of discharge, or (ii) any legal contract—express or implied—relating to the discharge of the trust. The landmark judgment relied upon is (1999) 3 SCC 259, which discusses that cheating may be committed in commercial and money transactions, and (1999) 8 SCC 686, which supports that a criminal case may arise even when there is a breach of contract, and that a civil profile does not negate a criminal character.Checking relevance for S. N. Vijayalakshmi VS State of Karnataka...
S. N. Vijayalakshmi VS State of Karnataka - 2025 6 Supreme 244 : Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for criminal breach of trust. Criminal breach of trust, as defined under Section 405 of the IPC, arises only when the accused has been entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, and dishonestly misappropriates or converts the same to his own use, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property. The foundation for invoking Section 406 falls to the ground if the accused were not entrusted with the property, especially when the property belongs to them and they have ownership rights and title over it.Checking relevance for Vijay Kumar Ghai VS State Of West Bengal...
Vijay Kumar Ghai VS State Of West Bengal - 2022 4 Supreme 42 : Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with criminal breach of trust. It applies when a person dishonestly misappropriates or converts to their own use property entrusted to them, or dishonestly uses or disposes of property in violation of any legal obligation or trust. The key ingredients are: (1) the property must have been entrusted to the accused; (2) the accused must have dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property to their own use; and (3) the act must be contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed by law or contract. The term ''''property'''' in Section 405 (which leads into Section 406) is not restricted to movable property and includes immovable property as well. The offence under Section 406 is not made out merely by a breach of contract; there must be a dishonest intention at the time of the act. The landmark principle established is that mere breach of contract, without fraudulent or dishonest intent, does not constitute a criminal offence under Section 406 IPC.
