Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 405 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Uma Shankar Gopalka And Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 13 May, 2004
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.
Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & vs Akhil Ranjan Prasad Verma & Or on 29 June, 2011
13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under
Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between
mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the
fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of
Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before
3
Cr. M.P. No.860 of 2018
us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and
therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the
situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount,
Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery
of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere
inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise
to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence.
Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their
face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be
found or inferred." (Emphasis supplied)
and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held
that a mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto,
constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405
IPC.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ashok Agrawal And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 11 February, 2014
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations
made in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant
and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in its
entirety still no offence punishable under the penal provisions of law is made
out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the dispute between the
parties is purely a civil dispute. It is further submitted that this criminal case
has been filed for wrecking vengeance. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Agrawal & Others vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.617 of 2021 dated
13.06.2023 wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph No. 6 of which reads as
under :-
1