The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings involving cheque dishonour and cheating. The court held that the allegations disclosed a criminal offence under Section 420 IPC.
The petition for quashing the order of cognizance dated 01.03.2012 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 756 of 2012
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----For the Petitioners: Mr. Subhash Chandra Prakash For the State: Mr. A.P.P For O.P.No.2: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta
07/13.05.2019 The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 01.03.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 863 of 2010 whereby the cognizance of the offences under Sections 420/34 of IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been taken against the petitioners and the co-accused respectively.
2
in the business of accused No.3. On bare perusal of the complaint, it would be evident that a huge amount of Rs.21,22,000/- is alleged to have been invested by the O.P.No.2, however, no chit of paper has been filed by the O.P.No.2 in support of the said payment to accused No.3. It is further submitted that the money allegedly invested by the O.P.No.2 in business with accused No.3 does not constitute any criminal offence, rather the dispute relating to quantum of payment and re-payment of money in a business relationship constitutes a civil dispute, which can be raised before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not received a single penny from the O.P.No.2. Admittedly, the O.P.No.2 received some profit upon investment of his money in the business of accused No.3 on regular basis and as such no case under Sections 420/34 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners have introduced accused No.3 with the O.P.No.2 to establish a good business relationship. On perusal of the complaint itself, it would be evident that accused No.3 had issued a cheque in favour of the O.P.No.2 which got dishonoured. It also indicates that nothing was paid to the petitioners by the O.P.No.2.
3
share of profit, however, the accused persons failed to keep the promise. It is also alleged that in settlement of the dues of the O.P.No.2, accused No.3 issued a cheque for the outstanding dues, however, the same also bounced and thus they cheated him.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
Satish/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 420/34 IPC and Section 138 NI Act can be quashed on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil in nature.
Whether the alleged inducement of a third party to invest money without personal gain constitutes an offence under Section 420 IPC.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dilip Kumar Sharma
Brihaspati Sharma
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Choudhary
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
