Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.33 seconds)Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors on 9 January, 2008
In the case of Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs.
Rajvir Industries Ltd. (supra), it was held that a case under
section 420/406 IPC was quashed on the ground the
intention to cheat must be there right from the beginning
when property was parted with. Any subsequent failure to
keep promise does not take the case to the mischief of
those offences. The ratio of this decision squarely attracts
in the background facts of the present case.
Sharon Michael & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 19 December, 2008
In the case of Sharon Michael vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (supra), it was held a case under section
420/409/120B IPC was quashed on the ground the
allegations contained in the FIR did not reveal that any
misrepresentation was made at the time of formation of the
contract. Similar is the position in the present case.
Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated & Ors on 20 October, 2010
In the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs.
Motorola Incorporated and Others (supra), the Apex Court
held misleading statement which withholds vital facts for
intentionally inducing a persons to do or omit to do
something would amount to deception. However, there is
no allegation against the petitioners far less against any
one that any misleading statement was made to induce the
accused company to enter into the Film Assignment
Agreement. Only allegation is this that they did not supply
the total number of feature films which were agreed upon
but the material collected during investigation went
otherwise and subsequently it was ascertained by the
complainant company that those feature films were
available in the market at much lower price.
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Anil Ritolla @ A.K. Ritolia vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 18 September, 2007
In the case of Anil Ritolla @ A.K. Ritolia vs. State
of Bihar (supra), the Apex Court held even though a
cheating or fraud can very well be committed in course of
commercial transaction, it is equally well-settled that the
allegations contained in the complaint petition must prima
facie show inducement of the victim to delivery any
property by the accused. In this case neither the allegation
that there is any inducement caused by the petitioners nor
there is any allegation pursuant to such inducement money
was paid. Furthermore, during investigation it is found that
the agreed articles were supplied to the petitioner for which
payment has been made.
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sayeed Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rahim on 10 February, 2012
In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sayed
Mohammed Masood (supra), it was held materials collected
during preliminary investigation are relevant when the
issue is one of quashing of the FIR. In this case the FIR has
been culminated in the charge sheet and the materials
collected during investigation clearly indicates that the
allegation made in the FIR on the face of the averment
made in the affidavit-in-opposition and vacating application
and the materials collected during investigation stands
contrary and no offence is made out.
M/S Thermax Ltd.& Ors vs K.M.Johny & Ors on 27 September, 2011
In the case of M/s. Thermax Ltd. vs. K.M. Johny
(supra), the Apex Court quashed a case relating to offence
under section 420/406 IPC ruling that if there is any
flavour of civil nature, same cannot be agitated in form of
criminal proceeding, more particularly where in a case of
section 420 IPC, an essential ingredient of such offence,
dishonest intention is absent and dispute pertained to
contractual obligation between the parties. Here in this
case there is no controversy that dispute arising out of
contractual obligation between the parties and having
regard to the facts as it transpires from the material
collected during investigation that after supply of agreed
number of feature films, the feature films which were found
to be technically defective, were not replaced and on
subsequent enquiry it is found the same was supplied at a
higher rate than the market rate, thus no case of an offence
punishable under section 420 IPC can said to have been
made out.
Arun Bhandari vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 10 January, 2013
In the case of Arun Bhandari versus State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra), the Apex Court held
mere facts that facts narrated in the complaint, reveal
commercial transaction cannot be a ground for holding that
offence of cheating could not be committed vide such
transactions. Where prima facie allegation of guilty
intention to induce the complainant to part with his money
were categorically made and where the case is not one
where promise initially made could not be fulfilled
subsequently, nor was it a case where it could be said that
even if the allegation in entirety were accepted no case was
made out, the quashing is not permissible. However, in the
case in hand there was no allegation against the petitioners
that they induced the complainant company to part with
the money and such allegation was made only against two
of the employees of the complainant company and besides
the bold allegation that the petitioners were involved in a
conspiracy with the said two co-accuseds no prima facie
materials have been disclosed from which inference of
conspiracy can be drawn. On the other hand from the
materials collected during investigation referred herein
before, it is evident that while payment was made in
instalments and the feature films were supplied to the
complainant company from time-to-time, but the dispute
arose when the complainant company came to learn that
those feature films were available in the market for telecast
at much lower rate and some of the feature films were not
technically feasible for telecast and after the same were
returned to the complainant company those were not
replaced. In this case out of total 70 feature films as per the
clear admission in the FIR, 37 feature films were delivered
to the complainant company and from the documents
seized by the police from the possession of the petitioners it
is found apart from those 37 feature films, the complainant
company got delivery of 24 more, acknowledging the same
were 'ok' for telecasting and out of the same, 21 already
were subsequently found not feasible for telecasting but the
document seized from the complainant company shows
only 7 were returned to the accused company and were not
replaced. Therefore, if any case is made out by the
complainant, the same is a case of subsequent failure to
keep promise by the complainant company by not replacing
the 7 feature films which were returned to it as was not fit
for telecasting and no case for cheating is made out.
V.Y.Jose & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 16 December, 2008
10) In support of its case from the side of the
petitioners total 27 decisions of the Apex Court have been
relied upon, which are as follows; Sarabjit Singh vs. State
of Punjab, reported in 2013 (6) SCC 800; M/s. GHCL
Employees Stock Option Trust vs. M/s. India Infoline
Limited (SC) : Law Finder Doc ld# 419581, reported in 2013
(4) SCC 505; Arun Bhandari vs. State of U.P., reported in
2013 (2) SCC 801; Lee Kun Hee vs. State of U.P., reported
in 2012 (3) SCC 132; M/s. Thermax Ltd. vs. K.M. Johny,
reported in 2011 (13) SCC 412; Iridium India Telecom Ltd.
vs. Motorola Incorporated and Others, reported in 2011 (1)
SCC 74; V.P. Shrivastava vs. Indian Explosives Ltd.,
reported in (2010) 10 SCC 361; Rama Devi vs. State of
Bihar, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 273; State of
Maharashtra vs. Sayed Mohammed Masood, reported in
2009 (8) SCC 787; Dilip Kaur vs. Jagnar Singh, reported in
(2008) 14 SCC 696; S.V.L. Rep. By CBI, Hyderabad,
reported in 2009 (6) SCC 77; Devendra vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, reported in 2009 (7) SCC 495; Harmanpreet Singh
Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2009 (7) SCC
712; Chunduri Siva Ram Krishna vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu,
reported in (2009) 11 SCC 203; Sharon Michael vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, reported in 2009 (3) SCC 375; V.Y. Jose vs.
State of Gujarat, reported in 2009 (3) SCC 78; R. Kalyani
vs. Janak C. Mehta, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516; V.R.
Dalal vs. Naranji Thakkar, reported in 2008 (15) SCC 625;
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Rajvir Industries Ltd.,
reported in 2008 (13) SCC 678; B. Suresh Yadav vs. Sharifa
Bee, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 107; Inder Mohan Goswami
vs. Uttaranchal, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1; Anil Ritolla @
A.K. Ritolia vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2007) 10
SCC 110; Veer Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal,
reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373; N. Devindrappa vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 228; M/s Indian Oil
Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd., reported in (2006) 6
SCC 736; Mahesh Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (2009) 4 SCC 439; S.P. Gupta vs. Ashutosh
Gupta, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 562.