SAMIR SA.HAY @ SAMEER SAHAY versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether ingredients of Section 420 IPC are made out against the appellant for framing charges
  2. 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