Allowed

Shivdutt Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Oct 2023Cr.M.P./1095/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash an FIR lodged for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court held that since substantial payment was made via thirteen cheques and the grievance involved only one dishonoured cheque, there was no evidence of initial intent to deceive or criminal intent. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court ruled that a mere dishono

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding and FIR (Case No. 831 of 2018) under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were set aside and quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Shivdutt Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1095 of 2022

¶3

Shivdutt Sharma .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Dr. Sumantra Sircar .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. S. Singh, Advocate Mr. Deb Nandan Rajak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, SPP

¶7

09/ 09.10.2023 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

2 . The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including FIR being Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.831 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

¶9

3 . The instant FIR has been lodged by Opp. Party No.2 (Dr. Sumantra Sircar) against the petitioner who is the Director of M/s Lalita Hospital & Research Centre, Deogher.

¶10

4 As per the FIR, the informant who is an Onco- Surgeon and running a Ashadeep Hospital, Phulwari Sharif, Patna was approached by the petitioner and others of M/s Lalita Hospital & Research Centre, Deoghar with a request to provide his services to the said Hospital for surgery and treatment of Cancer Patients. It is alleged that after verbal discussions and on mutual agreed terms, the informant conducted surgeries of the patients from the Month of February, 2017 to July, 2017 for which he received payments by different cheques.

¶11

5 . The main grievance for which the instant case has been filed is that one of the cheques to the tune of Rs.94,000/- was dishonoured and not paid to him.

¶12

5 . It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from a plain reading of the FIR, it will be apparent that the informant was paid as per the terms of the agreement by way of different cheques 13 in number. The grievance is confined to one of the cheques which was dishonoured and when the substantial amount has been paid, it cannot be said that there was any intention of deception from very inception and, therefore, the offence under Section 420 IPC will not be made out. Furthermore, there is no allegation that entrustment or subsequent misappropriation to make out a case of criminal breach of trust. For dishonour of cheque, FIR cannot be lodged as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2002(2) SCC 636 and only a complaint can be filed.

¶13

6 . Learned SPP for the State has opposed the quashing petition. It is submitted that investigation is still going and in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶14

¶15

Ors., reported in 2021 (SCC) OnLine SC 315 as such, the alleged FIR may not be quashed.

¶16

7 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available on record, I find much force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that no offence under Sections 406/ 420 IPC is made out on the basis of allegation as made in the FIR. As such, for dishonour of cheque, the FIR is not maintainable.

¶17

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including FIR being Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.831 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is set aside so far petitioner (above-named) is concerned.

¶18

The instant Cr. M. P. is allowed.

¶19

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶20

Sandeep/

¶21

Uploaded.

Shivdutt Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivdutt Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Bhoomika Sachacher Vs Union of India through Director General of Health Services

Sanjay Tandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Tandon Alias Pradeep Tandon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Kant Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bijendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand