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 Dismisses Complaint After 11-Year Delay, Cites Lack of Fraudulent Intent and Civil Nature of Dispute.</h1> <h3>Suresh Versus Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr.</h3> Suresh Versus Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr. - 2005 AIR 1047, 2005 (2) SCR 131, 2005 (3) SCC 670, 2005 (2) SCALE 169 Issues:Appeal against final judgment and order of High Court in Criminal Revision Petition, Allegations of offences under IPC, Cognizance of alleged offence under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., Dismissal of criminal revision by High Court, Setting aside orders of Magistrate and High Court, Inordinate delay in filing complaint, Lack of ingredients of Section 415 of Cr.P.C., Fraudulent or dishonest intention for cheating, Interest of justice.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against the final judgment of the High Court in a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant (accused No.1). The complainant alleged that the appellant executed an agreement to sell a property but failed to fulfill the terms, leading to criminal offences under various sections of the IPC. The complaint was filed after a significant delay of 11 years from the alleged agreement date. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant only for an offence under Section 420 IPC.The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the appellant, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the complaint was based on an agreement dated 25.12.1988, which was denied by the appellant. The delay in filing the complaint and the lack of criminal intent were crucial factors. The Court noted that the allegations appeared to be of a civil nature rather than criminal. The Magistrate's failure to consider the police report and the clean chit given to other accused showed a lack of judicial application.The Supreme Court found that the complaint did not establish the essential elements of Section 415 of Cr.P.C., necessary for cheating allegations. The Court emphasized that proving fraudulent or dishonest intent is crucial for cheating accusations. The Court concluded that the complaint, filed after an extensive delay, lacked merit and was an attempt to harass the appellant. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Magistrate and the High Court, dismissing the complaint due to the inordinate delay and absence of legal grounds. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining justice and fairness in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 