Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.99 seconds)
Documents citing Ahmed Moosa And Others vs Inspector Of Police, Jagtial And Others on 27 August, 1999

T. Chandrasekhar vs The State on 11 March, 2011

In 2010 (2) CTC 153 (Moosa Ahmed vs The Inspector of Police), this Court held that where a criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafides and where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance the proceedings could be quashed. Therefore, one of the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Penal Code is existence of an fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or existence thereof from the very beginning of formation of contract. Failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning, cannot be presumed.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Ali - Full Document

Basheer vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2005

6.In Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (supra) a Full Bench of this Court had occasion to hold that though the judgment rendered in the case of a co-accused and the Crl.M.C.No.3649/2016 -5- reasoning of the judgment contained therein or appreciation of the evidence therein are not matters to be taken into account for the purpose of granting any relief to quash the proceedings and thus bar the trial itself, a case where the very substratum of the case is lost which may be an exception to this rule.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sukesh Gupta vs The State Of Telangana on 22 November, 2022

Subsequently, MOU for settlement was entered into on 07.09.2020 and also an award was passed by the arbitrator on 25.11.2020. All the transactions are admitted by the defacto complainant and both the parties consented to all the transactions. Only for the reason of selling the 2nd property, which was in the nature of a second charge, will not amount to an offence of cheating punishable under section 420 IPC, since there was no deception played from the inception. Similar view was taken in Ahmed Moosa's case by this Court.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Habeeb vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2002

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner herein falls squarely within the exception carved out by the Full Bench in Moosa's case (supra). The learned counsel also drew my attention to Crl.M.C.1559/2013 4 Annexures 4, 5 and 6. As per those orders this Court accepted the contentions of the respective petitioners therein who are also accused in Crime No.42 of 1992 of Oachira Police Station and were absconding like the petitioner. This Court as per Annexures 4, 5 and 6 evidently accepted the contentions of the respective petitioners therein that by the pronouncement of Annexure-3 judgment the very substratum of the prosecution case in Crime No.42 of 1992 of Oachira Police Station is lost. In the said orders, it was observed that allowing continuation of criminal proceedings against the respective petitioners would not be in the interest of justice as in the light of Annexure-3 judgment herein viz., the judgment in S.C.Nos.216 of 1995, 8 of 1996 and 25 of 1997 no fruitful purpose could be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceedings against the respective petitioners. It is also to be noted that the incident in this case which ultimately led to the registration of the aforesaid crime occurred in the year 1992. It was taking into account of the aforesaid aspects that relying on Annexure-3 judgment this Court as per Annexures 4, 5 and 6 quashed the proceedings pending against some of the co-accused of the petitioner. I am of the view that in the circumstances, there is no reason for taking a view different from the view already taken by this Court in Annexures 4 to 6.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raveendran vs State Of Kerala on 25 October, 2002

It is settled law that acquittal of other accused persons is not a ground for even acquittal of the remaining accused, who did not face trial as has been observed by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552.). Further at the time of framing charge, the court need only look into the allegations made and if it is satisfied that there is ground to proceed against, then even there is suspicion of commission of offence by any of the accused persons, court can reject the application for discharge.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Renjith vs Sunil Kumar T on 11 August, 2005

In the decision reported in Moosa Vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552], the Full Bench of this court has observed that acquittal of other accused persons is not a ground for quashing the proceedings as against the co- accused who did not face trial invoking the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. But, in the same decision, the Full Bench has observed that, if the High Court is satisfied that the substratum of the prosecution case has been shattered and no purpose will be served by trying the accused who did not face trial and it will only amount to abuse of process of court and waste of judicial time, then, court can invoke the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against the accused person who did not face trial on the basis of acquittal of other accused persons. In this case, the case of the prosecution was that third accused had handed over his cheque to the Crl.M.C.No.1908 of 2012 : 7 : second accused which in turn was handed over to the first accused who filled up the cheque and put his signature and handed over the same to the complainant as though it was issued from his account maintained in the bank and this was done, according to the complainant, due to the conspiracy hatched between the three accused persons including the petitioner. Further allegation was that when the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured for the reason "name and signature of the drawee differs" and when it was known to the complainant that first accused had no account and the cheque was issued from the account of the third accused, he had filed the above complaint. It is seen from Annexure A2 Judgment that though the de facto complainant was examined as PW1, he did not support the case of the prosecution and further stated that the matter has been settled between the parties. It is on that basis, examination of other witnesses and examination of the accused who appeared namely., accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were dispensed with and accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted for the offences alleged under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure and they were set at liberty. Since the Crl.M.C.No.1908 of 2012 : 8 : main accused persons have been acquitted on the basis of settlement and as the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and the only allegation against the present petitioner was that he had handed over the cheque leaf issued to him from the account maintained by him in the bank and there is no allegation that he had induced the complainant that the cheque given by first accused was that of the first accused. Even if the case is allowed to continue, no purpose will be served as the substratum of the prosecution case has been shattered and PW1 himself had not supported the case of the prosecution. It was on that basis that the other accused persons were acquitted against whom the main allegation of forgery and cheating were alleged. So, under the circumstances, this court feels that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as against the present petitioner in view of the acquittal of the other accused persons on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties and in spite of notice issued, the first respondent did not appear which shows that he has no interest in prosecuting the case as well and it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the Crl.M.C.No.1908 of 2012 : 9 : proceedings as against the petitioner giving him the benefit of the order of acquittal of other accused persons.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next