Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise: Jharkhand High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has quashed criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1499 of 2011, involving allegations of cheating and breach of contract in a land deal for establishing a multiplex. The decision was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi in the case of Prakash Jha & Ors. vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

The crux of the judgement centered around the quashing of criminal proceedings due to the allegations being of a civil nature. The court meticulously analyzed whether the elements necessary for constituting cheating under Section 415 IPC were present and concluded they were not, given the absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the outset.

The complaint alleged that Prakash Jha, associated with Holy Cow Pictures Pvt. Ltd., had entered into a land deal for a multiplex in Jamshedpur but reneged on promises. The case took a turn when the police, after investigation, submitted a final form declaring the case as civil in nature. However, the court took cognizance under Section 418 IPC based on a protest petition.

Justice Dwivedi's observation highlighted the absence of encashment of relevant bank drafts, which rendered any agreement void under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. "To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise," the judgement read, echoing the principles laid down in precedents like Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal and Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh.

The judgement emphasized that the allegations, even if accepted in totality, did not suffice to initiate criminal proceedings under the IPC for cheating. It underscored that a mere breach of contract, without initial fraudulent intent, does not equate to criminal cheating.

The court allowed the petition, thereby quashing the criminal proceedings including the order of cognizance dated 10.01.2018. It was categorically stated that this decision should not influence the merits of the pending Title Suit No. 107 of 2009, which is to be adjudicated independently.

Date of Decision: 08.02.2024.

Prakash Jha & Ors. vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr

 

Latest Legal News