https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295119 A dispute arising from an agreement for sale and non-refund of advance did not, on the allegations, disclose cheating or criminal breach of trust because dishonest intention at inception, entrustment, and misappropriation were absent. The Court reiterated that a mere breach of contract, even if it results in non-payment or non-refund, is not enough to attract criminal liability. It further noted that inherent jurisdiction may be invoked where the FIR, taken at face value, discloses only a civil dispute and no cognizable offence, and the refusal to quash was therefore unsustainable. en-us Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Sep 2023 09:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295119 A dispute arising from an agreement for sale and non-refund of advance did not, on the allegations, disclose cheating or criminal breach of trust because dishonest intention at inception, entrustment, and misappropriation were absent. The Court reiterated that a mere breach of contract, even if it results in non-payment or non-refund, is not enough to attract criminal liability. It further noted that inherent jurisdiction may be invoked where the FIR, taken at face value, discloses only a civil dispute and no cognizable offence, and the refusal to quash was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295119