SAMIR SA.HAY @ SAMEER SAHAY versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
No allegations against the appellant of fraudulent or dishonest inducement required under Section 420 IPC; allegations only point to appellant's presence but not to him giving assurance or inducing deposit. Therefore, ingredients for framing charges under Section 420 IPC are not established.
- Parties
- Appellant: Samir Sahay @ Sameer Sahay; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Respondent No.2 (Colonel R.K. Singh, Retired)
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 25 August 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Criminal Revision and Discharge Rejection
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Cheating, Section 420 IPC, Section 415 IPC, Discharge of Accused
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Samir Sahay @ Sameer Sahay
Appellant
State of U.P.
Respondent
Respondent No.2 (Colonel R.K. Singh, Retired)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Criminal Revision and Discharge Rejection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether ingredients of Section 420 IPC are made out against the appellant for framing charges
- 2 Distinction between breach of contract and cheating under the Penal Code
Ratio Decidendi
No allegations against the appellant of fraudulent or dishonest inducement required under Section 420 IPC; allegations only point to appellant's presence but not to him giving assurance or inducing deposit. Therefore, ingredients for framing charges under Section 420 IPC are not established.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 28.02.2007 and judgment of High Court dated 21.10.2016 are set aside.
- Appellant is discharged from charges under Section 420 IPC in Case No.545 of 2002
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment