Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Manoj Kumar Sood & Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... ... on 24 September, 2021

Baljinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 17 September, 2024

8. Though the case as set up by the petitioner is that an NOC with regard to the shop in question had been obtained and it was the complainant who failed to get sale deed executed by making payment of balance sale consideration amount within the stipulated period, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a photocopy of NOC which is shown to be issued in favour of the petitioner with regard to the some residential property and not shop. As such, it is a debatable question as to whether the 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2024 21:36:30 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123604 CRM-M-38373-2024 -6- petitioner was actually ready to perform her part of the agreement or not? For the purpose of the present petition whereby the prayer has been made by the petitioner for extending him benefit of pre-arrest bail, it may be stated that the well settled proposition of law is that while dealing with the anticipatory bail petitions, the courts have to consider the gravity of the offence and need for a fair and proper investigation. The instant case is based on documentary evidence. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. It is well settled proposition that the jurisdiction of criminal Court cannot be invoked for realisation of dues of the complainant without trial and also that the criminal courts while exercising jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail, are not expected to act as a recovery agents to realise the dues of the complainant, that too without any trial. Reference in this regard can be made to Dilip Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 585 and the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal (criminal) No. 1274 of 2021 title as 'Manoj Kumar Sood and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, special leave to appeal (crl.)
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushil Kumar Saxena vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 11 February, 2022

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 02.12.2021 passed in ABA No. 8904 of 2021, the petitioner was given the privilege of anticipatory bail upon his undertaking in this court at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application, to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- to the informant without prejudice to his defence, subject to final decision in the case. It is next submitted that the amount of Rs. 23,94,251/- of a farm with which both the petitioner and the informant are associated, is lying due with Deoghar Municipal Corporation, Deoghar for which a writ petition has been preferred by the firm vide W.P. (C) No. 1271 of 2021 which has been disposed of vide order dated 21.12.2021 and the said amount is likely to be recovered within a short period. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertook at the time of hearing of ABA No. 8904 of 2021 to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- to the informant but due to present financial condition of the petitioner, he is unable to pay the said amount, hence, it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 23,94,251/- which is recoverable from Deoghar Municipal Corporation, Deoghar by the firm be adjusted. It is further submitted that the said order dated 02.12.2021 passed by this Court in ABA No. 8904 of 2021 is not in accordance with law and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Manoj Kumar Sood & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1274 of 2021, hence, it is submitted that the order dated 02.12.2021 passed in ABA No. 8904 of 2021 be modified.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Naresh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2023

Admittedly, the present FIR is based on agreement to sell dated 02.07.2019. It is settled law that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Undoubtedly, in the present case the petitioner is real brother of the complainant and the another person who executed agreement to sell in question was their father who has since died. It is a matter of evidence as to whether the petitioner and his father entered into aforesaid agreement to sell with the complainant with malafide intention from the very beginning to deceive the complainant. Further, a criminal Court exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/ anticipatory bail is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realize the dues of the complainant and that too without any trial, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) 1274 of 2021 Manoj Kumar Sood & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, decided on 19th March, 2021. Apart from this, in the instant case the petitioner who has joined the investigation is not required by the police for any further investigation or custodial interrogation. Furthermore, the petitioner has filed civil suit challenging the genuineness of the agreement to sell dated 02.07.2019 while the complainant has filed suit for specific performance on the basis of the said agreement to sell. Besides, the entire case is based on documents which are already available with the police.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K Singh - Full Document
1