Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Pruthvi Honnegowda, S/o Sri M.Honnegowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Petitioner/accused No. 3 is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 210 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447, 380, 323, 465, 468, 471, 120-B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent 3.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. A particular land in Sy.No.35 of Sathnuru Village, Jala Hobli, measuring 19 acres 10 guntas was purchased by a partnership firm, M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates represented by its partner Sri Lakshman Gupta. On 01-12-1970, six persons constitute a partnership firm and continued M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates which is said to have commenced from 26-11-1970, the date on which Sri Lakshman Gupta purchased the aforesaid property. The record of rights of the land stood in the name of the partner of M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates, Sri Lakshman Gupta. The RTCs from year to year stood in the said name. On 04-07-1992 Sri Lakshman Gupta dies. After his death the
The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner as there was no direct transaction linking him to the complainant's claims, thus highlighting the importance of substantiating allegations with factua....
Offence of cheating - Quash of criminal complaint - There is no fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person induced to deliver any property to any person again same is not the case her – Court not....
(1) Criminal breach of trust and cheating – Cognizance of offences – Same person cannot be simultaneously charged for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC with regard to one particul....
The court quashed proceedings against the accused under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, determining that the allegations lacked essential elements required for prosecution.
Breaches of commercial agreements do not constitute criminal offenses unless fraudulent intent is established at the outset, reinforcing that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal matt....
Fraudulent intent must be established for criminal liability in financial transactions, distinguishing between civil breaches of contract and criminal offenses like cheating.
Criminal liability under IPC requires clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing, which was absent; thereby, genuine civil disputes cannot sustain criminal charges.
Cheating – Dispute which is purely civil in nature, cannot be given colour of criminal prosecution.
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
