Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Amresh Kumar Dhiraj And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 8 October, 2014
17. Further, from the impugned order dated 01.09.2012, it appears
that the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate did not disclose any
ingredients for the offence u/s 417 of IPC with respect to cheating
and simply it has been observed by the learned court below that on
7 Cr. M.P. No. 2751 of 2013
perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. on oath and on enquiry
evidence, a prima facie case for the offence u/s 417 of IPC is made
out and no specific ingredients of constituting the offence of
cheating against the petitioner has been indicated in the impugned
order and as such the impugned order was passed due to non-
application of judicial mind and which is patent error of law in the
impugned order. There is a well settled proposition of law that in
taking cognizance judicial mind must be applied by the concerned
court with respect to the offence as to whether it has been
committed or not or whether there is any overt act or allegation
against the petitioner for involvement in the commission of the
offence or not. The impugned order does not indicate that what are
the ingredients of offence or any particular allegation against the
petitioner for his involvement in the commission of the offence and,
therefore, this order is not tenable in the eyes of law. From the
impugned order, it is found that no dishonest or fraudulent
inducement made by the petitioner to the complainant /Opposite
Party No. 2 in order to deliver any property to any person. The
order taking cognizance must be a speaking order consisting of
prima facie commission of offence and involvement of the accused
in the commission of the said offence as discussed elaborately with
the provisions of law by this court in Amresh kumar Dhiraj and ors
versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199.