TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court on Quashing Complaints: Fraudulent Inducement & Guilty Intent Essential</h1> <h3>Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. Versus Biological E. Ltd. & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court emphasized the exceptional nature of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a complaint, ... - Issues Involved:1. Exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Allegations of cheating and misrepresentation under Sections 415, 418, and 420 IPC.3. High Court's discretion in quashing complaints.Summary:1. Exercise of Jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The Supreme Court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power u/s 482 of the Code to quash a complaint or charge-sheet is an exception rather than a rule. The Court stated that such power should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases to prevent the misuse of the legal process. The Court reiterated that the factual matrix is crucial in assessing whether the complaint discloses any offense.2. Allegations of Cheating and Misrepresentation under Sections 415, 418, and 420 IPC:The complaint involved allegations against the accused for failing to supply raw materials as per an agreement, leading to substantial financial losses for the complainant. The complainant argued that the accused made false representations and had a dishonest intention from the beginning, which constituted cheating u/s 415, 418, and 420 IPC. The Supreme Court noted that the ingredients of these sections require a fraudulent or dishonest inducement and a guilty intent at the time of making the promise. The Court highlighted that mere failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute cheating unless there is evidence of dishonest intention at the outset.3. High Court's Discretion in Quashing Complaints:The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for quashing the complaint without adequately considering the allegations. The Court reiterated that the High Court should not go into the correctness of the allegations at the initial stage and should only examine whether the complaint discloses an offense on its face. The Court cited previous judgments to emphasize that the High Court's inherent powers should be exercised with caution and only in cases where the continuation of proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of the Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order quashing the complaint, and restored the complaint for trial. The Court clarified that its observations should not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and directed the trial Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
