TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the second complaint and FIR were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process owing to multiple complaints on the same cause of action and forum shopping; (ii) Whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy.
Issue (i): Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the second complaint and FIR were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process owing to multiple complaints on the same cause of action and forum shopping;
Analysis: The complaint before the Kolkata police was found to be a reproduction of the earlier complaint lodged at Delhi, with only a jurisdictional variation. The earlier request for registration of an FIR had been declined by the Delhi Magistrate, and the subsequent Kolkata proceedings were initiated on the same transaction after suppression of the earlier proceedings. The filing of parallel proceedings on the same cause of action was treated as impermissible and indicative of an attempt to harass the accused and secure a favourable forum. Applying the settled principles governing inherent jurisdiction, the continuation of such proceedings was held to amount to abuse of the process of the court.
Conclusion: The proceedings were liable to be quashed on the ground of abuse of process and impermissible multiple proceedings.
Issue (ii): Whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy.
Analysis: For criminal breach of trust, entrustment and dishonest misappropriation are essential. For cheating, a dishonest or fraudulent intention must exist at the inception of the transaction. The Court found that the dispute arose out of a commercial investment arrangement, that shares were ultimately allotted, and that the complaint did not show dishonest intention from the beginning or any material indicating entrustment and misappropriation. Mere failure to perform a commercial promise or delay in performance was held insufficient to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. On the face of the complaint and the accompanying materials, the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out.
Conclusion: The allegations did not disclose the offences under Sections 406, 420 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Final Conclusion: The impugned criminal proceedings were unsustainable and were set aside, resulting in quashing of the FIR and the connected proceedings against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint arising from a commercial transaction is a second, substantially identical proceeding on the same cause of action and the basic ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust are absent, the High Court may quash the prosecution to prevent abuse of process under its inherent powers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
