TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has committed offences under Section 406, 420 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'IPC'). 3. Respondent No. 4 was working as Administrative Officer in "Amaaru Family Education Trust" at Ahmedabad and claimed that he has been residing there, leading life peacefully. He also stated that Shri Dharmendra P. Rami @ Lal„bhai was running business of Siti Cable in Bapi Nagar area at Ahmedabad, was known to him for many years and both of them enjoyed good relations with each other. 4. Sometime in the year 2005, complainant had gone to Hyderabad at his wife's place where he had the occasion to watch "God TV" which influenced him deeply and profoundly touching his holy spirit. He wanted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t according to the Complainant, the Appellant deliberately avoided his communications. In the meanwhile, the cable operators who had started telecasting "God TV" were also pressurizing the Complainant for the said amount. 9. As mentioned hereinabove for about five months, they enjoyed watching "God TV" without any disruption but thereafter the reception signals of the said channel developed some technical snag. Thus, from October 2005, on account of poor quality of receivers, the reception was also not clear and was blurred. He once again contacted the Appellant who agreed to send receiver to the Complainant. After having received the said receiver, it was delivered to Mr. Lalabhai but as per the Complainant's version, by that time t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtained and refused to hear the petition on merits, even though the Appellant was given liberty to file an application for his discharge before the Trial Court. It may be noted that even in its impugned order the learned Single Judge has emphasized that he had not considered the case on merits. Thus the Appellant's petition was dismissed and interim order granted in his favour was vacated. 12. Now the Order dated 11.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Appellant's Criminal Application No. 1977 of 2006, is subject matter of challenge in this Appeal. 13. We have accordingly heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi with Mr. Shamik Sanjanwala for the Appellants Ms. Jesel, for Respondent No 1,2 and 3 and Ms. Aparna Bhat f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abuse of the process of law. 17. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for Respondents especially Respondent No. 4, contended that intention to cheat the complainant was clearly made out by the action of the Appellant, ultimately resulting in lodging of F.I.R. against Appellant and Respondent No. 4 both. Learned Single Judge was fully justified in rejecting the Appellant's Petition as it was not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction conferred on the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Thus, a prayer was made that no case for interference was made out and the Appeal be dismissed. 18. In the light of the rival contentions we have to examine whether cognizance of the offences could have been taken by the Compet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on such averments and allegations, even a prima facie case of the aforesaid offences could be made out against the present Appellant. 21. Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of the IPC and 406 thereof deals with punishment to be awarded to the accused, if found guilty for commission of the said offence i.e. with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 22. Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the IPC to constitute an offence. Under the aforesaid section, it is inbuilt that there has to be a dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecessary to draw a distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been succinctly held by this Court in Devendra v. State of U.P. 2009 (7) SCC 495, relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinbelow: A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out. 27. In fact, all these questions have been elaborately discussed by this Court in the most oft-quoted judgment reported in 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 335 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where seven cardinal principles have been carved out before cognizan....