Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 522 (4.63 seconds)
Documents citing Uma Shankar Gopalka And Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 13 May, 2004

Vikash Kumar @ Bikash Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2023

9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra), the deception played at the very inception is a sine qua non for the cheating and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Akhori Chandreswari Sahay @ Sachin ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2026

11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as has already been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment that in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has in no uncertain manner reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception with the victim since the beginning of the transaction between the parties.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Jagdishbhai Bhogilal Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 7 February, 2023

17. Thus, mere breach of contract would not amount to cheating, only if intention to cheat existed at the very inception, then that would bring the case U/s. 405 and 420 of IPC, however, if such intention is developed later on, the same would not amount to Page 45 of 53 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:34:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5245/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2023 undefined cheating, as has been observed in the judgment referred above and even in Uma Shanker Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Vinu Cheeran vs The State Of Telangana on 20 July, 2018

In Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar (referred supra), the Supreme Court held that, the law as well settled, every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the said case, it was nowhere stated that, at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. Mere making an allegation that the petitioners cheated the second respondent is not sufficient to constitute an offence.
Telangana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2026

10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused must have played deception since the inception of the transaction between the parties.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Prem Nath Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2026

10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra); in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Shri Sunil Kumar Sethi vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 18 July, 2024

37. The following observation made by the Court in Uma Shankar Gopalika V. State of Bihar with almost similar facts and circumstances may be relevant to note at this stage : (SCC pp 338-39. Para 6-7) "6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of the complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Section 420/120-B IPC. The only allegation in the complaint petition against the accused persons is that they assured the complainant that when they receive the insurance claim amounting to Rs. 4,20,00, they would pay a sum of Rs. 2,60,000 to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid........ It was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the consumer forum in relation to the claim of Rs. 4,20,000. It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case, it was nowhere been stated that at the very inception that there was intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.
Manipur High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next