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 directs investigation on cheating complaint, emphasizing fraudulent intent</h1> <h3>V. Ravi Kumar Versus State and Ors.</h3> V. Ravi Kumar Versus State and Ors. - 2018 (14) SCR 828, 2019 (14) SCC 568 Issues Involved:1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Legality of filing a second complaint after withdrawal of the first complaint.3. Distinction between civil breach of contract and criminal offence of cheating.4. Exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings being Crime No. 54 of 2005, observing that the complainant had withdrawn the first complaint without assigning any reason, and that the complaint arose out of a commercial transaction. The High Court held that the complainant should approach the Civil Court for recovering dues arising out of the commercial transaction. The Supreme Court, however, held that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other statute which debars a complainant from making a second complaint on the same allegations when the first complaint did not lead to conviction, acquittal, or discharge. The Court cited precedents, including Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 130, and Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur 2001 (2) SCC 570, to support this view.2. Legality of Filing a Second Complaint After Withdrawal of the First Complaint:The Supreme Court emphasized that a second complaint is permissible if the first complaint did not result in a decision on merits. The Court referenced Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Anr. v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876, which held that a second complaint could be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as when the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint. The Court also cited Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. v. Fazru (2010) 2 SCC 631, which reiterated that an order of dismissal of a complaint is no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts in exceptional circumstances.3. Distinction Between Civil Breach of Contract and Criminal Offence of Cheating:The Supreme Court noted that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence and gives rise to civil liability. However, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is a criminal offence, is a fine one. The Court highlighted that fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In this case, the FIR contained allegations of fraudulent and dishonest intention, including allegations of fabrication of documents, which could only be determined during trial when evidence is adduced. The Court cited Mridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168, and Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 293, to support this view.4. Exercise of Inherent Powers by the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The Supreme Court held that the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court reiterated that it is not permissible for the High Court to lay down any straitjacket formula for regulating the inherent power under Section 482. The Court emphasized that power under Section 482 might be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law, but only when the allegations, even if true, would not constitute an offence and/or were frivolous and vexatious on their face. The Court cited State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 122, to illustrate the category of cases in which power under Section 482 could be exercised.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order quashing the complaint, and directed the first Respondent to proceed with further investigation in accordance with law. The Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the complaint, which disclosed an offence prima facie. It was not for the High Court to enter the factual arena and adjudicate the merits of the allegations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
