Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Shikhar Chemicals – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. high court order on quashing application. (Para 1) |
| 2. critical observation on high court's reasoning. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. details of the complaint and legal notices. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. high court rejection of the criminal proceedings. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. nature of complaint and reason for filing. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. explanation of legal concepts of entrustment. (Para 14) |
| 7. distinction between cheating and breach of trust. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. criticism of high court's handling of the case. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. remand and directions from the supreme court. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. administrative instructions to the high court. (Para 28 , 29) |
ORDER
2. With all due deference and humility at our command, we are constrained to observe that the impugned order is one of the worst and most erroneous orders that we have come across in our respective tenures as judges of this Court.
4. It all started with a private complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 herein in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar, which came to be registered as Complaint Case No. 113283 of 2023. The complaint reads thus:
2. That since both parties are in the same
The court held that a mere failure to pay for goods does not constitute criminal breach of trust, and quashing of criminal proceedings was required when the allegations pertained to a civil dispute.
In cases of civil dispute complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as same would amount to abuse of process of law.
(1) Issuance of process – Mere existence of some grounds which would be material in deciding whether accused should be convicted or acquitted does not generally indicate that case must necessarily fa....
The court determined that mere breaches of contract do not constitute criminal offences without proof of fraudulent intent, emphasizing that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal compl....
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
Point of law : exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court....
Mere non-payment for goods in a civil transaction cannot constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under IPC; intent must be proven.
The mere failure to pay for goods in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under IPC without evidence of dishonest intention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
