Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
ASHA MENON
Ravi Vansha Narayan Mathur – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the lease of property and alleged deceit. (Para 2 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. jurisdictional issues regarding fir registration. (Para 10 , 11 , 16) |
| 3. malice in initiating criminal proceedings. (Para 15 , 32 , 34) |
| 4. court's authority and criteria for quashing fir. (Para 19 , 26 , 33) |
| 5. final decision to quash the fir. (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 14th March, 2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (for short, `MM'), South District, Saket, Delhi.
2. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioners and respondent No.2 entered into a commercial transaction where under the petitioners had leased out a property at Jaisalmer. The petitioner No.1 was a partner in the partnership firm by the name of M/s SRM Heritage Jaisalmer having its registered office at Mumbai. The petitioner No.2 was working as the Chief Development Officer of the partnership firm at the relevant time. The respondent No.2 is the Director of M/s JAH Developers Pvt. Ltd. (`company') alongwith two other Directors,
Criminal jurisdiction is restricted to the area where the offence occurred, and parties cannot confer jurisdiction through a contract; thus, allegations of fraud in a lease agreement without evidence....
The court emphasized that it would not hesitate to use its inherent powers to quash the FIR and restrain investigation in cases where the continuance of investigation would result in a miscarriage of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute between the parties was predominantly of a civil nature and could not be allowed to take on a criminal character. The court found ....
A mere breach of contract does not preclude a finding of criminal cheating; fraud must be established at the agreement's inception.
The main legal point established is that the allegations in the FIR warranted investigation, and the court rejected the petitioners' contentions regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, the civil/....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute of a civil nature cannot be converted into a criminal offence, and the filing of a mala fide FIR can be quashed under categories (1)....
A writ petition under Article 226 can be maintained to quash an FIR if it discloses cognizable offences, regardless of a pending civil suit, emphasizing the need for investigation into alleged crimin....
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
