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>Application to Quash Complaint Dismissed; Appeal Allowed for Lack of Cheating Evidence in Civil Dispute.</h1> <h3>B. SURESH YADAV Versus SHARIFA BEE AND ANR.</h3> B. SURESH YADAV Versus SHARIFA BEE AND ANR. - 2008 AIR 210, 2007 (11) SCR 238, 2007 (13) SCC 107, 2007 (12) JT 341, 2007 (12) SCALE 364 Issues:1. Application for quashing a complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.2. Allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code based on a sale agreement for a house and subsequent demolition of two rooms.3. Dispute regarding whether the demolished rooms were part of the property sold.4. Examination of the elements of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.5. Analysis of fraudulent or dishonest intention in the context of making false representations.6. Consideration of civil and criminal liabilities in the same matter.7. Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the legal process.8. Comparison with previous judgments on the elements of cheating and fraudulent intention.9. Decision to set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment addressed an application seeking to quash a complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The case involved allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code based on a sale agreement for a house and the subsequent demolition of two rooms. The dispute centered around whether the demolished rooms were part of the property sold, leading to a legal challenge.2. The court delved into the elements of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the requirement of deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement causing harm. The analysis focused on the lack of false representations or inducement by the accused during the sale deed execution. It was noted that the matter was already sub judice before a civil court, highlighting the civil nature of the dispute between the parties.3. The judgment scrutinized the aspect of fraudulent or dishonest intention in making representations, emphasizing the need to establish such intent at the time of promise or representation. The court considered the contradictory stands taken by the complainant in the civil suit and the complaint petition, highlighting the significance of consistency in legal proceedings.4. The court discussed the coexistence of civil and criminal liabilities in the same matter, clarifying that the liability of a person could be both civil and criminal simultaneously. However, it stressed the importance of aligning stands taken in different legal forums to ensure coherence and credibility in legal proceedings.5. The judgment also addressed the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the legal process. Drawing from previous judgments, the court emphasized the cautious approach required in criminal proceedings to avoid misusing the legal system for ulterior motives.6. Finally, the court compared the present case with previous judgments on cheating and fraudulent intention to establish a coherent legal framework. The decision ultimately set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal, concluding that no case of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code was substantiated based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 