TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondent on the ground that the dispute was purely civil and that the materials did not disclose offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Analysis: The allegations in the FIR, protest petition and case diary were not confined to mere presence of the respondent. They disclosed her participation in the transaction, receipt of money with her husband, execution and use of a power of attorney, and subsequent transfer of the property, which prima facie indicated collusion and a dishonest design from the stage of negotiation. A civil dispute does not exclude criminal liability where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust. In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court was required to act with restraint and not quash proceedings where the complaint disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the cognizance order. The order of cognizance and summons was restored and the Magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
