Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N.JADHAV
Tejas Lalit Soni – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case involves anticipatory bail application due to allegations under indian penal code. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented for and against the anticipatory bail focus on contractual obligations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. prior cases clarify the distinction between civil and criminal cases regarding breaches. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Ghag, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Gajare- Dhumal, learned APP for Respondent No.1 - State and Mr. Malik, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2/Intervener - First Informant.
3. Prosecution case emanates from the version narrated by Respondent No.2 – Complainant in the FIR. The version initiates in the backdrop of a Sole Selling Distribution Agreement dated 08.06.2023 (“Agreement” hereinafter) the terms of which, according to Prosecution, have been breached by Applicant. This breach led to termination of the Agreement by the counter party – Hunnar Jewels (Hereinafter “the Company”) on 07.11.2023. There was a Novation of Contract in May 2024 between parties. According to Complainant, there was breach committed thereafter. Prosecution asserts that Applicant was obligated, post to return back the gold stock received by him under terms of
Criminal machinery cannot be applied to disputes primarily of a civil nature without clear evidence of fraud or deception at inception.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for purely civil disputes; necessary intent for criminal charges must be evident, or they risk being quashed as an abuse of legal process.
The court held that the age and health of the applicants, along with the nature of the allegations, justified granting bail despite serious charges under economic offences.
The ingredients of the offenses under Sections 405/406/420 IPC are prima facie present in the case, as there was evidence of entrustment of the jewelry, dishonest intention at the time of the transac....
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.
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.
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
