M. NAGAPRASANNA
Santosh B. Reddy S/o Balasubramanya – Appellant
Versus
State By Banaswadi P. S. Represented By SPP – Respondent
ORDER :
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
The petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.430 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
2. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent, the complainant and petitioners 1 and 2 are members of the same family. The father of the complainant who is also the father of the 2nd petitioner had acquired a property pursuant to a registered sale deed in the year 1997 from one Dr. Latha Natarajan who acquired the land through a document executed by the Bangalore Development Authority. Thus, the father of the complainant became the absolute owner of the property. He dies. The mother who was suffering from cancer is said to have executed a mortgage deed in favour of ICICI Bank without the knowledge of the complainant by creating a mortgage for availing loan upon the property for Rs.7.10 crores. The said amount is transferred by the Bank into the account of the 1st petitioner. It is said to have been utilized by the 1st petitioner keeping the complainant in dark. Broadly on these circumstances, the complainant registered a complaint against the p
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Kaptan Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh
Mahesh Chaudhary v. State Of Rajasthan
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
The court established that allegations of forgery and cheating can coexist with civil disputes, allowing for criminal proceedings to continue.
The court established that civil disputes can coexist with criminal allegations, and the merits of such allegations must be determined through trial, not preemptively dismissed.
The court held that distinctions between civil and criminal transactions may not bar criminal proceedings when fraud or wrongdoing is alleged, requiring an investigation into the claims.
The mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings where allegations disclose crimes, and the delay in filing a complaint does not negate the need for investigation.
A complaint is not maintainable when there is a pending civil suit for determination of civil rights and the learned Magistrate must provide reasons for taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C.
Civil disputes should not be framed as criminal offences when no fraudulent intent is evident, as it constitutes an abuse of legal processes.
The court ruled that criminal proceedings based on civil disputes without clear fraudulent intent are an abuse of process, necessitating dismissal of such charges.
Section 465 of IPC deals with punishment for forgery.
(1) A bonafide criminal case cannot be stifled at threshold by High Court.(2) In order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act l....
Mere pendency of suit cannot be made a ground for quashing criminal proceedings – Entire prosecution story could not be disbelieved on the ground of delay.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.