Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
K.Emanuel vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Through ... on 8 October, 2012 cites

Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava And Anr on 16 February, 2005

(a) Suresh V. Mahadevapa Shivappa Danannava and another1, wherein the Supreme Court held that "it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at time of making promise. The order of the Magistrate and of the High Court requiring the accused to face trial would not be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case to set aside the order of the Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court of issuance of process and the proceedings itself."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 84 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Veer Prakash Sharma vs Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr on 1 August, 2007

(b) Veer Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Anr.2, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "non-payment or under payment of purchase price does not constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. When cheques issued by the accused towards purchase price dishonoured, the same by itself does not amount to cheating. The fact that the accused had subsequently expressed that he knowingly issued fabricated cheques does not show intention of accused to cheat from the very inception. The fact that the accused had subsequently expressed that he knowingly issued the fabricated cheques also does not show that the accused had an intention to cheat from the very inception." Under these circumstances, refusal to quash criminal proceedings is improper. Turning to the facts of the present case, the petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 06.05.2002. Normally, the bank authorities would make enquiries before advancing the loan as to whether the property was under mortgage to any other financial institution or bank. If they made enquiries, they would have certainly come to know as to whether the same property was under mortgage with any financial institution/bank. From the facts of the case, therefore, it has to be understood that either the bank did not take appropriate care in knowing about the fact as to whether the same property was under mortgage to any financial institution/bank or that despite knowing the said fact, they sanctioned the loan to the petitioner and when it became due, as the petitioner was unable to repay the future instalments after making some payments, the bank resorted to launching criminal proceedings to pressurize the petitioner to make the payments. In any event, if really, there was dishonest intention or deception on the part of the petitioner at the time of borrowing the loan, he would not have paid the instalments to the tune of Rs.1,80,600/-. From the facts of the case, it is obvious that the petitioner-A1 could not be able to pay the instalments after making payment up to an amount of Rs.1,80,600/- and on that the bank lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Begumpet P.S. From the averments of the report, it does not appear that there was any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner to cheat the bank while borrowing the loan. The mere fact that the loan borrowed by the petitioner became overdue does not involve any criminal liability. The dispute as well as the liability of the petitioner-A1, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is purely a civil dispute and it does not involve any criminal offence. Launching criminal prosecution in a case of this nature is nothing but abuse of process of laws and if the prosecution is allowed to continue against the petitioner-A1, it would result in miscarriage of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 221 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1