Back
DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Hasmukhbhai Lakhmanbhai Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. As both these applications are arising out of common FIR, both these applications are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. By way of these applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC” for short), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No.I-58/2018 registered with Babara Police Station, Amreli for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short).
3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the applicant no.2 viz., Hareshbhai Mavjibhai Bhatia of Criminal Misc. Application No.15438/2018 has expired during the pendency of this application and, hence, this application stands abated qua him and is fined to other applicants.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present applications are as under,
4.1 That, the land land bearing Survey No.717 situated in the sim of Village : Babra, admeasuring Acre 4-16 gunthas was granted to one Palabhai Bhurabhai on “sathani” basis and land admesuring Acre 5-20 Gunthas was granted to one Bhanabhai Palabhai in the y
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 ....
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....
Bona fide purchasers cannot be implicated in forgery or fraud where they have no part in wrongdoing, and prior allegations point to their victimization.
The court emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences, quashing the FIR due to lack of criminal intent in the allegations.
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....
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
