Dismissed

Bhuneshwar Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Nov 2022Cr.M.P./1564/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition challenging the affirmation of an order quashing an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court held the dispute arose from partnership and lease agreements involving land, finding no entrustment required for offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420. The petition was dismissed as there was no illegality in the lower court's orders.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; no relief was granted to the petitioner.

Bhuneshwar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1564 of 2022

¶3

Bhuneshwar Prasad …… Petitioners Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Akhilesh Kumar …… Opposite Parties

¶5

---------

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Gautam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.

¶8

5/Dated: 04/11/2022

¶9

The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 2021 whereby order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M in Chainpur P.S. Case No. 97/2021 has been affirmed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that police submitted final form in which O.P. No. 2 has not been sent up for trial. He submits that the petitioner filed a protest petition on 03.09.2021 which was dismissed by the learned S.D.J.M. Palamau vide order dated 25.10.2021 which was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 84/2021 which was also dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2022. He submits that ingredients of sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. are made out.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned

¶12

order.

¶13

The Court has perused the impugned order dated 09.03.2022 and finds that there is dispute with regard to partnership deed and lease deed and there are contractual agreement between the parties for that F.I.R. was lodged. The F.I.R. was investigated by the police in which final form was submitted showing the case civil in nature. The petitioner filed protest petition which was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. which was affirmed by the revisioinal court after going through the materials on record. The revisional court found that there is no entrustment of any property rather it is the case of the informant that he entered into a partnership agreement and after that he gave his land for business and under such consideration offence under section 406 I.P.C. is not made out. There is no illegality in the impugned orders. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶14

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶15

Satyarthi/

Bhuneshwar Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuneshwar Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhiraj Kumar Thakur Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Bhaduri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kashi Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Alias Chandan Agarwal Vs the Union of India through CBI