Back
HARISH KUMAR
Sourav Basu – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Harish Kumar, J.—This Court has heard Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for the Vigilance.
2. The petitioner by filing the present application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending against him in Special Case No. 343 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 81 of 2017 and also the charge-sheet bearing no. 20 of 2019 dated 25.04.2019, wherein, the petitioner has been charged with offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary for the final adjudication of the matter are as follows: The aforenoted vigilance case has been instituted on the basis of enquiry conducted by Sri Arun Kumar, Dy. S. P., Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna in the light of the report issued by the vigilance and other departments in connection with large scale corruption in the schemes of Bihar Mahadalit Vi
The court affirmed that without personal wrongdoing or clear involvement in company actions post-resignation, criminal liability cannot be established, and proceedings can be quashed as an abuse of p....
The court affirmed that a party only involved in a civil contract cannot face criminal liability unless it directly transacted or misappropriated funds, supporting the need for a clear distinction be....
Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. Considering the allegations made in the c....
The court affirmed that criminal proceedings cannot be used as leverage in civil disputes, emphasizing the need for proof of dishonest intent and necessary ingredients for offences claimed. Lack of v....
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that every breach of contract does not give rise to an offence of cheating, and the intention to cheat must be present at the very inception. The j....
The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust, and that the essential ingredients of these offenses, such as fraudulent or dishonest inte....
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
