Back
IN HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA, J
Pratima Kumar Midha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
V.SUJATHA, J.
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the crime No.612 of 2020 on the file of SHO, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”).
2) Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. Respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint before the police alleging that she is the partner of NK Engineering Works established by her husband in the year 2014. Later, in the year 2016, petitioner No.1 herein joined as partner in her firm and they executed a partnership deed on 18.05.2016 and on the same day her husband and one Aryaman Midha (petitioner No.2 herein), who is the son of petitioner No.1, joined as Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) respectively. On 26.06.2019 at about 4.00 p.m. petitioner Nos.1 and 2 came to the house of respondent No.2 and insisted her to sign on a newly created deed of retirement, on perusing the same, she refused to sign on those papers, for which both the petitioners abused her in filthy language and thr
The court emphasized that prosecution for cheating requires clear evidence of dishonest intention from the outset, and vague allegations without such intent constitute an abuse of process.
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to quash proceedings only when no offence is disclosed, requiring specific allegations against eac....
The court ruled that the absence of dishonest intention in the allegations against the petitioners justified quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offences, and quashing is warranted when no prima facie case exists.
The absence of specific allegations against the petitioner in a criminal complaint warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.
The distinction between breach of contract and criminal cheating requires proof of fraudulent intent at the transaction's inception.
The court quashed proceedings for cheating and intimidation, finding no prima facie case due to lack of dishonest intention and insufficient evidence.
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offenses, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of criminal intent to sustain charges of cheating.
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
