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 overturns High Court order, emphasizes need for judicial determination on cheating allegations.</h1> <h3>Indseam Services Ltd. Versus Bimal Kumar Kejriwal (HUF)</h3> Indseam Services Ltd. Versus Bimal Kumar Kejriwal (HUF) - 2001 AIR 3512, 2001 (8) SCC 15, 2001 (7) JT 614, 2001 (6) SCALE 305 Issues:1. Cognizance under Section 420 IPC and issuance of process against accused persons.2. Dismissal of revision petition by High Court.3. Allegations of cheating and abuse of court process.Analysis:1. The case involved M/s Indseam Services Limited appealing against the order of the Calcutta High Court dismissing their revision petition to quash the order of the magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC and issuing process to the accused. The complaint was based on three cheques drawn by the appellant in favor of the respondent, which were returned by the bank. The magistrate initially dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC, stating it was a civil dispute. However, the High Court directed further inquiry and the magistrate took cognizance under Section 420/120B IPC, leading to the appeal by the accused.2. The High Court declined to interfere with the magistrate's cognizance order, citing a specific direction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC. The High Court emphasized that it could not sit on appeal over a co-ordinate bench's judgment and dismissed the revision petition. The appellant contended that no prima facie case for cheating under Section 420 IPC was made out and that the criminal prosecution was a means of harassment. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the ingredients of cheating were present, as substantial sums were involved.3. The Supreme Court observed that the single judge did not delve into the merits of the case while disposing of the revision petition. The court noted a lack of consideration for the nature of the contract, payment arrangements, and whether the ingredients of cheating were prima facie established. The court criticized the avoidance of judicial determination and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration without making any observations on the case's merits. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and remitting the case for fresh disposal.
TaxTMI 