Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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