Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 206 (5.09 seconds)
Documents citing Devender Kumar Singla vs Baldev Krishan Singla on 17 February, 2004

Sh. Mahesh Chand vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 26 October, 2013

In Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan Singla, 2004 Cri.LJ 1774, the facts were like this:­ "The accused Devender Kumar Singla in the company of his wife the other accused Mala Singla, purchase shares from the complainant Baldev Krishan in the presence of Teja Singh, son of Sajjan Singh. The complainant wanted that the payment thereof be made in cash, but accused Devender assured him that as he was a reputed dealer in the sale and purchase of shares, and his business ran into lacs, the payment by cheque would be more 8 in order. The complainant acting on h is representation accepted a post dated cheque and issued by accused Mala Singla, and was payable on 08.08.92. The complainant also delivered shares and in token of having received the same. Devender executed a receipt. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonored on the ground that the payment had been stopped by the drawer and this fact was conveyed to the complainant vide memo dt.08.08.92."
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bipul Medhi vs State Of Assam on 10 August, 2006

36. Turning to Section 417, IPC, it needs to be noted that Section 417, IPC makes punishable offence of cheating. Cheating has been defined in Section 415, IPC. The ingredients of the offence of cheating require (i) deception of a person, (ii) whereby, fraudulently or dishonestly, inducing the person, so deceived, to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything, which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Deception of a person is common to the second and third requirements of the provisions of Section 415. The ingredients, as pointed out under (i) and (ii) hereinbefore, are alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear by use of disjunctive conjunction "or". The definition of the offence of cheating embraces cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and also cases in which such a transfer occurs. Deception is the quintessence of the offence. [See Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla ].
Gauhati High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 4 - I Ansari - Full Document

K.E. Dayalan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 July, 2016

28. The main argument of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners/accused is that the offences alleged against them is not made out especially when there is no proof to show that they have acted with an element of cheating from the date of first transaction with the defacto complainant. It is further stated that the subsequent act of the accused to cheat the defacto complainant or to keep up their promise will not give rise to a criminal prosecution. This argument of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Devender Kumar Singla vs. Baldev Krishnan Singla) 2005 (9) Supreme Court Cases 15 relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor, held that the act of cheating with dishonest intention cannot be proved by direct evidence and it has to be inferred from all the available circumstances including the conduct of the accused in alienating the property to the disadvantage of the defacto complainant. It can be proved by number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn. In this case, whether the accused acted with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant at the time when they first met the defacto complainant or whether there are circumstances which led to them not to keep up their promise cannot be inferred by this Court at this stage. In this case, the investigation itself has not been completed and therefore, this plea of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage when the investigation has not been concluded in this case. In any event, such an argument advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners cannot be a ground for quashing the first information report registered against the accused. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the accused can be considered only after the investigation in this case is completed and a charge sheet is filed.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Hemalatha Ramesh vs State By Inspector Of Police (Crime) And ... on 10 January, 2007

14. Learned Counsel for the second respondent-defacto complainant has also placed reliance on two decisions namely one decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla . In that decision, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that mens rea dishonest intention on the part of the accused could be proved from the circumstances and there need not be any direct evidence. That case was decided by the Apex Court after full fledged trial.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - K N Basha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next