Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.33 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
`102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.'
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present
case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 but did not
advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on
which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully
satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court
ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under
section 482 CrPC, 1973 and quashed the criminal
proceedings."
M/S Thermax Ltd.& Ors vs K.M.Johny & Ors on 27 September, 2011
In M/s Thermax Ltd. and others versus K.M. Johny and
others, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 409, it was held as under:-
Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 28 November, 2022
intention of the petitioners was not to cheat the Bank in any manner. In fact,
they had been repeatedly writing to the respondent No.2-Bank to effect some
sort of a settlement but to no avail. However, subsequent to the registration
of the FIR, the sale deeds executed by their mother had got cancelled. The
property had been handed over to the Bank which thereafter auctioned it.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioners' company had also entered into a One Time
Settlement with the Bank and a No Due Certificate in that regard has been
issued. He, thus, contends that even on the basis of the admitted facts of the
present case, the proceedings qua the petitioners ought to be quashed,
moreso, when their mother, main accused-Vanita Goyal had since expired on
12.10.2019. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of 'Ramesh Chandra Gupta versus State of U.P. and ors.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
C.B.I vs Maninder Singh on 28 August, 2015
Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (supra), Central Bureau of
Investigation versus Maninder Singh (supra) and State of Maharashtra
Through Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) would show that the
criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of a settlement with the
Bank as the Courts are to guard the collective interest of the society.
Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the
State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private individuals. Therefore, repayment of money fraudulently
obtained from the Banks and the subsequent issuance of a No Due
Certificate would not be enough to quash the proceedings.
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Hari Singh Ranka on 18 July, 2017
20. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that once a settlement had been arrived at between the parties,
proceedings emanating out of FIR No. 243 dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure P-3)
under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi, District
Fatehgarh Sahib and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were
liable to be quashed, a perusal of the judgments in "Central Bureau of
Investigation versus Hari Singh Ranka (supra), Parbatbhai Aahir alias
16 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 13-04-2023 06:01:55 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048851
2023:PHHC:048851
CRM-M-3854-2022 (O& M) ::17::