Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.44 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mitesh Kumar J Sha vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2021
Imparting the criminal colour to a
civil dispute made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief
granted in the criminal case in contrast with the civil dispute has been
deprecated by the Court time and again and the judgments relied by Mr.
Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
in the case of "Sarabjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab" , "International
Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallugy and New Materials
(ARCI) And Others v. Nimra Cerglass Technics Private Limited and
Another" and Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka and
Others" (supra) are helping the petitioners. Further there is no doubt that
the High Cout is required to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C
with circumspection that is not in dispute and if the criminal case is made out
the criminal case and civil case both can go simultaneously, however, if the
criminal case is not made out, and to allow the present proceeding to
continue further will amount to abuse of process of law.
Priti Saraf vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 March, 2021
14. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Priti Saraf and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another"(supra) is not in dispute and in the fact of that case that order has
13 Cr.M.P. No. 638 of 2016
been passed. In that case, the property was in the ownership of the second
respondent. The said property was mortgaged with the State Bank of Patiala
and the total legal liability payable to the Bank was Rs.18 crores. That in
order to clear the said dues, the second respondent hatched a conspiracy
with broker Ashok Kumar so as to cheat and defraud the appellant
complainants and to further misappropriate the amounts paid by the
complainants as part of the deal, the second respondent breached the trust
of the appellant complainants deliberately and falsely stating to the appellant
complainants that the second respondent would be liable to pay a sum of
Rs.25.50 crores to the complainant if the deal is not carried forward by the
second respondent and in that background that case has been lodged and it
was a clear case of cheating and on that background, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has passed the said order. In view of that, that judgment is not helping
the O.P.No.2 as the facts of this case are otherwise.
S.W. Palanitkar And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 18 October, 2001
The above view in Palanitkar case [(2002) 1 SCC 241 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 129] was referred to and followed in Rashmi Jain v. State of
U.P. [(2014) 13 SCC 553 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 751]
Rashmi Jain vs State Of U.P. on 13 January, 2014
The above view in Palanitkar case [(2002) 1 SCC 241 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 129] was referred to and followed in Rashmi Jain v. State of
U.P. [(2014) 13 SCC 553 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 751]
The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Section 17 in The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Sarabjit Kaur vs The State Of Punjab on 1 March, 2023
He submits that
in view of the above facts if any case is made out, that is civil in nature and
for which criminal case has been filed and to buttress his such argument, he
relied in the case of "Sarabjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab" (2023)5 SCC
360 and refers to paragraph nos.8, 12 and 13 of the said judgment which
are quoted below:
Ram Saran (A.S.I.M.)(Pno ... vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Home & ... on 23 March, 2021
In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 26.08.2015
in connection with C. P. Case No.3012 of 2014, pending in the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad are quashed. This petition is
allowed and disposed of.
1