Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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