Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I.ARUN
Amulya R. W/o Vaishak K.H.V. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in business disputes resulting in legal action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by defense and prosecution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. investigation required to ascertain the validity of claims. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. differentiation between offences under ipc and n.i. act. (Para 10) |
| 5. conclusion on the dismissal of petitions and continuation of proceedings. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
1. The complainant and the petitioners had certain business transactions which resulted in the complainant lodging a complaint with respondent No.1-Police. Accused No.1 is the father, accused No.2 is his daughter, accused No.3 is the son-in-law and accused No.4 is the assistant of accused No.1. Criminal Petition No.4799/2024 is filed by accused No.2; Criminal Petition No.5231/2024 is filed by accused No.3 and Criminal Petition No.5657/2024 is filed by accused No.1 and accused No.4.
2. The complaint lodged by respondent No.2-complainant reads as under:
3. Based on the said complaint, the respondent No.1-Police have registered a Crime No.37/2024 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore City, for the offences under Sections 420 , 40
Accused cannot be charged under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC for the same act, as these offences are mutually exclusive; errors in FIR regarding charges are not fatal to proceedings.
Prosecutions under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 N.I. Act are distinct; trial for both based on same facts not permissible due to differing evidentiary requirements.
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....
A mere breach of contract does not constitute criminal liability under IPC unless fraudulent intent is established at the time of inducement.
The court held that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the necessity of fraudulent intent from inception.
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
