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>Court quashes criminal proceedings, emphasizing lack of fraudulent intent in civil dispute.</h1> <h3>N. Anbuselvam, G.A. Poongodi, M. Gokulapriya, G.A. Pavithra Versus State by Inspector of Police Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore District. And V. Selvam</h3> N. Anbuselvam, G.A. Poongodi, M. Gokulapriya, G.A. Pavithra Versus State by Inspector of Police Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore District. And V. ... Issues:Quashing of criminal proceedings under sections 420, 406, and 506(ii) IPC based on a complaint alleging civil nature of transactions and criminal intimidation.Analysis:1. The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, arguing that the allegations were civil in nature, aiming to extract money. They claimed the transactions were misrepresented to appear criminal, involving threats to kill and stop a marriage.2. The court examined the complaint's contentions and the petitioners' defense, highlighting discrepancies in the narratives presented by both parties regarding a loan for a hotel business and subsequent repayment issues.3. The court noted the petitioners' evidence of mortgage discharge receipts, sale deeds, and bank deposits to support their claim of repaying substantial amounts, contradicting the complainant's version.4. Regarding the offenses under sections 420 and 406 IPC, the court found no evidence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the lack of fraudulent intent and the petitioner's efforts to repay the loan partially.5. Citing previous judgments discouraging criminal courts for civil recovery matters, the court emphasized the importance of proving fraudulent intent for cheating allegations, which was absent in this case.6. The court referenced Supreme Court rulings to establish that mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven, which was not evident in the present case.7. The court concluded that the dispute was primarily civil in nature, lacking criminal intent, and thus, the offenses under sections 420 and 406 IPC were not made out.8. Regarding the offense under section 506(ii) IPC, the court found the allegations vague and unsubstantiated, aimed at adding a criminal dimension to a civil dispute without credible threats or intimidation.9. Relying on precedents emphasizing the need for real threats in criminal intimidation cases, the court dismissed the intimidation charges due to the lack of genuine threats or actions causing fear.10. The court invoked Supreme Court observations to prevent criminal prosecution abuse for personal vendettas, leading to the quashing of the FIR to prevent the petitioners from facing unjust trial proceedings.11. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR in Cr.No.1045 of 2013, to prevent the misuse of legal processes and ensure justice, closing the related miscellaneous petition.
TaxTMI 