Back
SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR
Amna Naim Wife of Abrar Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.
2. This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.05.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 25229 (C)/2014 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The case of the complainant-opposite party no. 2, in brief, is that in the year 2012, the petitioner/accused came to the complainant and his wife and told them that she is working in State Bank of India as ‘Dalal’ and she could help them to get loan of Rs. Five lakh for the purpose of starting a small scale industry from bank and for this work she demanded Rs. 1.25 lac at once. After agreeing, the complainant paid Rs. 1.25 lakh to the petitioner/accused for the purpose of getting the loan.
4. Further case of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 is that when loan was not sanctioned to them, complainant went to the residence of the petitioner and asked her to return his money amounting to Rs. 1.25 lakh. Th
Accepting and giving bribe for the purpose of getting a loan is forbidden, illegal, and not permissible.
The court quashed criminal proceedings as the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and were deemed an abuse of process, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if criminality is made out, civil and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously.
The court established that allegations of non-return of funds in a professional context do not constitute criminal offences under IPC Sections 417, 406, or 506.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a criminal proceeding can be quashed if it is manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute criminal cheating unless fraudulent intent is established at the outset of the transaction.
The necessity of proving fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
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
