<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (5) TMI 1058 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770786</link>
    <description>A complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust failed where the materials showed only a commercial dispute over non-payment of sale consideration. The Supreme Court of India noted that criminal breach of trust requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation or conversion, while cheating requires dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction; those foundational elements were absent on the complaint and undisputed documents. As the dispute was essentially civil and the criminal allegations were unsupported, continuation of the FIR was treated as an abuse of process and was liable to be quashed in inherent jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 13:15:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1058 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770786</link>
      <description>A complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust failed where the materials showed only a commercial dispute over non-payment of sale consideration. The Supreme Court of India noted that criminal breach of trust requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation or conversion, while cheating requires dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction; those foundational elements were absent on the complaint and undisputed documents. As the dispute was essentially civil and the criminal allegations were unsupported, continuation of the FIR was treated as an abuse of process and was liable to be quashed in inherent jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>