Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court quashes criminal proceedings due to abuse of process, citing vague allegations and overlapping civil suits.</h1> <h3>Magic Creation Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Versus Satish Shreedhar Modak Karta & Manager of Satish S. Modak HUF</h3> The court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, citing abuse of the process of law. The court found the allegations vague ... Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - section 138 of NI Act - the offences alleged in the complaint are not made out - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the complainant that by fabricating the cheques, the amount was credited into the account of the accused, thereby resulting in misappropriation of amount. The contention of the complainant that the documents in respect to the liability are fabricated also Prima­facie appears to be after thought. There is no evidence of fabrication of documents. Admittedly Civil proceeding are pending before the appropriate Court and the claims of respective parties are subject matter of the said proceeding. The Cheque for an amount of ₹ 71,17,132.90/­ was dishonoured. The said Cheque was also signed by the complainant. It was dishonoured on 12­09­2000. After receipt of intimation from banker, notice was issued to the complainant demanding the amount in accordance with Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. According to the petitioner the said notice was not replied by the complainant. The defence of respondent No.1 is that there is failure to establish Prima­facie that notice was issued by the advocate for the complainant therein and was received by the accused - The fact remains, there was no amount in the account of the complainant and the cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds. The proceedings under Section 138 were initiated by the accused. The petitioners have relied upon the invoices in support of their claims. Civil proceedings are also pending in the respective Court. Several accused are impleaded in this proceeding. The allegations against them are vague. It would be an abuse of Process of Law to continue the prosecution against the petitioners and hence the proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside - Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1.2. Allegations of cheque forgery and misappropriation.3. Legitimacy of the issuance of process by the Metropolitan Magistrate.4. Claims of abuse of process of law by the petitioners.5. Overlapping civil and criminal proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Criminal Proceedings Initiated by Respondent No.1:The petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 through Criminal Case No.10/S/2001. The complaint alleged multiple offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 403, 405, 463, 464, 477A, 192, 193, 120A, 120B, 201, 202, 425, 426 read with Section 34. The complaint was filed on 09-02-2001, and the Metropolitan Magistrate issued a process on 09-03-2001, finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.2. Allegations of Cheque Forgery and Misappropriation:The complainant alleged that the accused conspired to forge and misappropriate cheques. Specifically, a blank cheque inadvertently signed by the complainant was allegedly forged to show a liability of Rs. 71,17,132.90 in favor of Patel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (Accused No.6). Another cheque for Rs. 92,40,000 was also claimed to be forged in favor of Magic Creation Pvt. Ltd. (Accused No.10). The complainant reported the loss of the cheque book to the police and the bank, but the cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds rather than stop payment instructions.3. Legitimacy of the Issuance of Process by the Metropolitan Magistrate:The petitioners argued that the Metropolitan Magistrate issued the process mechanically without proper scrutiny. They claimed the complaint was false and filed as a counterblast to avoid liabilities. The court found that the complainant's allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents appeared to be an afterthought, with no prima facie evidence of document fabrication. The court noted that the cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds, not because of any alleged forgery.4. Claims of Abuse of Process of Law by the Petitioners:The petitioners contended that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law. They argued that the complaint was filed with malafide intentions to pressure the petitioners. The court observed that the complainant's actions appeared to be a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the allegations against several accused were vague and lacked specificity.5. Overlapping Civil and Criminal Proceedings:The court noted that civil proceedings were also pending regarding the disputed cheques. The petitioners had filed civil suits for the recovery of the amounts allegedly due under the cheques. The court emphasized that the claims of the respective parties were subject to adjudication in the civil proceedings. Given the overlapping nature of the civil and criminal cases, the court found it inappropriate to continue the criminal prosecution.Conclusion:The court concluded that continuing the prosecution against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of law. The proceedings in the impugned complaint bearing No.10/S/2001 were quashed and set aside against the petitioners.Order:1. Criminal Writ Petition No. 763 of 2001, 764 of 2001, and Criminal Writ Petition No. 836 of 2001 are allowed.2. Proceedings in the impugned complaint bearing No.10/S/2001 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Andheri, along with the order issuing process passed therein, are hereby quashed and set aside against the petitioners.3. Petitions are disposed of.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found