Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.36 seconds)Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rajiv Modi vs Sanjay Jain & Ors on 14 July, 2009
In the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme court in the case of (Rajiv Modi vs. Sanjay Jain and others) (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 241, relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the defacto complainant, it was held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot go into the merits or otherwise of the complaint and if the Court is satisfied that there exist a prima facie case on the basis of the averments made in the complaint, then the accused must be directed to face the trial in the Criminal Case and quashing the first information report is not warranted. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of this case inasmuch as this Court finds a prima facie case made out against the petitioners/accused and therefore, the first information report registered against them need not be quashed at this stage.
Devender Kumar Singla vs Baldev Krishan Singla on 17 February, 2004
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.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 405 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
26. Applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision to the facts of this case, in this case, it is admitted that the first petitioner/first accused-Dayalan has entered into an agreement of sale with the defacto complainant company and also received the entire sale amount. While so, it is not known as to what prompted him to sell the property covered in the agreement of sale entered into with the defacto complainant in favour of his relative. Admittedly, the agreement of sale with the defacto complainant has not been cancelled by the petitioner/accused-Dayalan. It is also not his case that the defacto complainant has violated any of the terms and conditions governing the agreement of sale. It is also not known as to whether the petitioner/accused has sent any notice to the defacto complainant complaining non-compliance of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement or informed them about his intention to alienate the lands covered under the agreement of sale entered into with them. Therefore, the circumstances under which the petitioner/accused Dayalan has executed the sale deed with his relative Krishnamurthy has to be established by the prosecution by producing material evidences. Thus, in my considered opinion, a prima facie case has been made out by the defacto complainant warranting registration of first information report against the accused in this case. It is not as though the allegations in the first information report do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. In my considered opinion, a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners/accused. Therefore, the circumstances as exist in this case, in my considered opinion, do not warrant quashing the first information report registered against the petitioners/accused.