Back
M. K. THAKKER
Dattubhai @ Chhatrasinh Hamirsinh Desai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C.’ referred hereinafter) praying to quash the complaint being IC. R.No.29 of 2014 registered with Umala Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant, namely, Dhavalbhai Bipinbhai Patel has filed the aforesaid FIR against two accused, namely Dattubhai @ Chatrasinh Hamirsinh Desaithe present applicant and Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj. It is alleged in the aforesaid FIR that the present applicant is the owner and occupier of the various parcels of land in village Asha, Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch. One of the land bearing Block No.811A and 811B of village Asha Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch was owned by the applicant and his son namely Hemendrasinh Desai. The agreement to sell came to be executed with regard to the aforesaid land between Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj and the applicant on 09.05.2013 as the said Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj could not make the payment of the amount as agreed therefore, the agreement to sell came to be can
The intention to cheat must exist at the very inception for a breach of contract to amount to cheating. Giving civil disputes the color of criminal disputes for a relatively fast relief in criminal c....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating or criminal liability unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown to exist at the inception of the transaction. Similarly, execution of a....
The court emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences, quashing the FIR due to lack of criminal intent in the allegations.
There must be a prima facie case for a cognizance order; if facts only reveal a civil dispute, the criminal proceedings cannot proceed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of alleged forgery, the court must consider the nature of the dispute, the absence of financial loss or loss of property, and the set....
The discrepancies in the metes and bounds did not amount to forgery or cheating, and the allegations in the FIR did not make out any offence under the relevant sections of the IPC.
It is well settled that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the representation or promise and ....
Execution of sale deeds exceeding a co-sharer’s share does not constitute forgery or cheating, reaffirming that civil disputes should not be criminalized without clear offences being present.
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
