AI Overview...
-
Section 420 IPC Offense - No Offence Established
Multiple judgments, including Md. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2009 SCC 751, establish that merely purchasing land from a person who is not the owner does not constitute an offense under Section 420 IPC. The Supreme Court clarified that for cheating under Section 420, there must be evidence of cheating and its consequences, not just a transaction involving non-ownership.
References: Bhanwar Singh VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan, RAKESH VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Peeyush Aggarwal vs State - Delhi, Sanjay Pandey VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Pankaj Kumar VS State Of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Jeeva Ram VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan -
Legal Principles from Mohd. Ibrahim Case
The case is frequently cited for interpreting the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC. It emphasizes that without proof of cheating and its resultant harm, the offense cannot be sustained. The Court's ratio decidendi is that the absence of cheating or misrepresentation negates the offense, even if there is a disputed transaction or misled purchaser.
References: RAKESH VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Late Haro Singh VS State of Bihar through the Director General of Police - Patna, DHANPAT KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR - Patna, Sanjay Pandey VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Pankaj Kumar VS State Of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Jeeva Ram VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan -
Application in Various Cases
Courts have relied on the Mohd. Ibrahim judgment to quash FIRs, reject charges, or discharge accused persons where no evidence of cheating was found. The principle that mere suspicion or disputed ownership does not amount to cheating underpins these decisions.
References: Peeyush Aggarwal vs State - Delhi, Sanjay Pandey VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Jeeva Ram VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan, ASAD ALI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad -
Conclusion
The consensus across these judgments confirms that for an offense under Section 420 IPC, there must be clear proof of cheating and its impact. The Mohd. Ibrahim case serves as a landmark precedent, guiding courts to dismiss cases where allegations are based solely on disputed transactions or lack of fraudulent intent.
References: All listed sources
Search Results for "Mohammad Ibrahim 420"
2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1673 • India - Rajasthan
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
SELL - NO OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 420 IPC - Md. ... Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 746, RELIED ON. ... Therefore, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. ... Choudhary, appearing for the petitioners has relied upon Md. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2009 Cr.L.R. ... In view of authoritative pronouncement in Md. Ibrahim's case (supra), by mere purchase of land from a person, who was not owner of the same, no offence under Sect....
2014 0 Supreme(All) 65 • India - Allahabad
MANOJ MISRA
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 482, 200 and 202—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 467, 468 and 464—Summon—Complaint—Allegation ... In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra), an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is not made out against the applicant. ... In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Apex Court was required to examine a similar question as has arisen in the present case. ... Thu....
2017 0 Supreme(Pat) 750 • India - Patna
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. ... Quashment of FIR - Criminal Writ Jurisdiction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 471, 406, 506, 509, 511 - Md. ... Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751 - G. Sagar Suri & Another vs. ... In Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2009(8) SCC 751, the Apex Court had occasion to examine the ingredients of offences under Sections #....
2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 1756 • India - Patna
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467 and 468 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating ... Submission is that the issue of requirement to prove offences under Sections 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim & Others versus the State of Bihar & Another, (2009) 4 PLJR 99 (SC). ... As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420#HL....
• India - Delhi High Court
ANISH DAYAL
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120B - FIR quashed - Petitioner, a bona fide purchaser, was misled into ... Reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. ... As regards the offence under Section 420 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. ... Ibrahim (supra) states that: "19.To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, th....
2015 0 Supreme(Jhk) 801 • India - Jharkhand
RAVI NATH VERMA
I.P.C. - Md. ... Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2009 (4) JLJR 75 (SC) - Ashish Chadha vs. Smt. ... Revision Application - Discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of ... In support of her contention, learned counsel has relied on judgment reported in Md. Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2009 (4) JLJR 75 (SC). ... 5. ... After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet under Sections 467, 468, 471, #HL....
2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 2413 • India - Jharkhand
ANANT BIJAY SINGH
The court also considered the legal principles established in the case of 'Mohammad Ibrahim & Others vs. ... Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in the case of 'Mohammad Ibrahim & Others vs. ... Criminal Revision - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 239, 156(3), 407, 420, 467, 427 of the Indian Penal Code - The court discussed ... That the learned courts below have completely overlooked the judgment as reported in 2009 (8) SCC 751 " Mohammad I....
2017 0 Supreme(All) 2246 • India - Allahabad
RAHUL CHATURVEDI
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 311 – (Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420 and 120-B – Summoning – Application – Rejection ... After registering the case, the investigation started rolling and the Investigating Officers after concluding the investigation has submitted charge sheet, on 31.3.2006 against as many as four persons, including the present revisionist Asad Ali son of Mohd. Ibrahim. ... To lay stress upon the contention, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, cited a judgment of Apex Court UMAR MOHA....
2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 654 • India - Jharkhand
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
The court also referred to the judgment in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. ... Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the ratio of the judgment in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. ... of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mohd. ... Looking into the judgment in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. ... He submits that so far this petitioner is concerned, no criminality is made out particularly section 420 IPC. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully c....
2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1321 • India - Rajasthan
DINESH MEHTA
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles from the case of Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. ... by the court includes the case of Mohd. ... Ibrahim & Ors. v. ... Since, the complainant- Pritam has not been cheated in any manner by way of the documents in question, the controversy involved in the present cases is fully covered by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. ... Learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered in the cas....
Filter by Legal Phrase
