PARTH PRATEEM SAHU
Akansha Kannouj, W/o. Shri Amit Kannouj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) is preferred by petitioner seeking quashment of order dated 02.11.2022 passed in S.T. No.280/2021 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur has framed a charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) against the petitioner.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of present case are that on 7.6.2017 complainant lodged written complaint in concerned police station mentioning that in the year 2011 she came into contact with petitioner’s husband namely Amit Kumar Kannauj and friendship developed between them. On the pretext of providing job to her in Railways, petitioner’s husband has obtained a total sum of Rs.6,48,150/-, which she has given to him either in cash or deposited in his account on different occasions. Thereafter, petitioner's husband took the complainant to Puri (Odhisha) on the pretext of her interview and there he established physical relation with her without her wish. It is further alleged that once when she went to the house of petitioner’s husband to give money, there also he established physical relation
Deepak Gaba & ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors
Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors
Devendra & ors vs. State of UP & anr
Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & anr
Om Wati (Smt.) & anr. vs. State
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs. Motorola Incorporated & Others
Mahadeo Prasad v. State of W.B.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of establishing fraudulent or dishonest inducement and intention at the beginning of the transaction to constitute the offence of che....
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
The court established that for an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be clear evidence of inducement to deliver property, which was absent in this case.
Criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the cognizance stage in disputes involving alleged misappropriation of funds. Such matters require evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.