Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Devendra Kumar Tyagi & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 23 August, 2011
In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a
distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has
been succinctly held by this Court in Devendra v. State of
U.P., 2010(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 448 : 2010(6) Recent
10 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 19:12:37 :::
CRM-M No.43373 of 2016 (O&M) 11
Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 105 : (2009)7 SCC 495, in
which, it was held (para 27) that a distinction must be
made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When
dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong
and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a
person to be harassed although no case for taking
cognizance of the offence has been made out."
M/S Thermax Ltd.& Ors vs K.M.Johny & Ors on 27 September, 2011
(b) Admittedly, the agreement to sell is dated
03.05.2005 whereas the instant complaint was filed after a
period of 06 years i.e. much after expiry of period of
limitation, for filing a suit for specific performance. It is
own case of the complainant that he had already filed a suit
for specific performance, which has been decreed ex parte
on 15.12.2009 and, thereafter, he has filed the execution. It
is also not disputed that in the execution, the complainant
could not deposit the balance sale consideration within 02
months period granted by the Civil Court vide its decree
dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure P9). The present complaint
has been filed, after a period of 02 years of passing of the
aforesaid decree, which shows that the complainant having
failed to comply with the decree passed in his favour, with
mala fide intention has resorted to filing the impugned
complaint in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in M/s. Thermax Limited' case (supra).
Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava And Anr on 16 February, 2005
Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment "Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and
another", 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 29, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in para 12 and 13 has held as under:-
Vesa Holdings P.Ltd.& Anr vs State Kerala & Ors on 17 March, 2015
(g) From a bare perusal of the complaint and the
17 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 19:12:37 :::
CRM-M No.43373 of 2016 (O&M) 18
preliminary evidence, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC
are not made out in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Vesa Holdings Private Limited's case
(supra).