Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
A.C. Narayanan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 September, 2013
The case of
A.C. Narayanan and Anita Malhotra's Case (supra) are also not
applicable in view of the fact that both the aforesaid decisions relate
to cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. In A.C. Narayanan it
was held that the complainant (payee) can file complaint under N.I.
Act through power of attorney holder but the said power of attorney
holder should have due knowledge regarding the transaction and it is
required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the
knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction in
the complaint.
Rajesh Bajaj vs State Nct Of Delhi And Others on 12 March, 2000
In Rajesh Bajaj's case(supra) it has been held that the crux of
the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of
his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would
become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of the
offence or not. In the case at hand it is averred in the petition of
complaint that the accused no. 2, 3 and 4 came to the complainant's
place of business and introduced themselves as successful
businessmen and directors of Jagdamba Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd. (accused
No. 1 company). Upon the request and inducement of the accused
persons, the complainant delivered the goods to them and raised the
invoices for the same from time to time. The goods were duly received
by them but small amount of payment was made after much
persuasion by the complainant and a substantial sum of Rs.
18,49,733 is outstanding. The complainant demanded the aforesaid
dues over telephone as well as by demand notice but in vain. On
18/8/2015 the complainant made telephone call to the accused no. 2
demanding payment but he denied having any knowledge about the
receipt of the goods. The complainant was induced to believe by the
accused persons that payment would be made within one month and
they drew a rosy picture of business opportunity in Asansol,
Jharkhand and Orissa. The complainant was unable to understand
the dishonest intention of the accused persons and believed them.
The main offence alleged by the complainant is that the accused
persons duped him and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver
goods. Such averments prima facie make out a case for proceeding
against the petitioner for the offence alleged. At this juncture it will be
beneficial to refer to paragraph 9 of the Judgement in Rajesh Bajaj's
case wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:
Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar & Anr on 12 March, 1985
In
Pratibha Rani versus Suraj Kumar reported in (1985)2 Supreme
Court Cases 370 the Supreme Court held as follows in paragraph 21
of the Judgement:
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal this Court laid down the
premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The
following observations made in the aforesaid decision are a
sound reminder: (SCC p. 379, para 103)
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint
and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or
caprice."