IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C.DOSHI
Shantiben Babulal Chotara – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 144 of 2014 registered with Anjar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1 That criminal complaint being I-Cr. No. 144/14 (originally stated in the complaint as 144/13) had been filed with the Anjar Police Station for offences punishable under Section 406 , 420 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE dated 05.05.2014. The period when the offence had been committed is shown as from 19.08.2013 till date. The petitioners state that complainant respondent No. 2 alleges in the complaint that he is residing at the address given in the cause title and he was interested in purchasing land bearing survey No. 86/1/paiki 2 admeasuring 810 sq. mtrs located at Anjar (in short “land in dispute”) which was of the ownership of the present petitione
Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.
The FIR was quashed as it lacked essential elements of criminal breach of trust and cheating, being merely a misuse of criminal process to enforce a contractual obligation.
The FIR did not disclose essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust or cheating, reflecting a misuse of police powers to convert a civil dispute into a criminal proceeding.
The Court reiterated that quashing of FIRs should be exercised sparingly, emphasizing that suppression of material facts by the petitioner warranted the dismissal of the petition.
The mere failure to pay for goods in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under IPC without evidence of dishonest intention.
The distinction between criminal breaching of trust and cheating must establish prior dishonest intent from the outset, and purely civil disputes cannot be criminally prosecuted.
The court ruled that allegations of cheating and breach of trust based on the sale of flats established prima facie criminal offences, warranting continuation of proceedings despite claims of civil n....
The allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under IPC Sections 406 and 420, as they lack essential elements of criminal intent, reflecting a civil dispute instead.
The essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating must be established; mere deficiency in land measurement does not imply deceit or fraud.
Civil disputes can involve criminal elements; thus, the existence of a civil remedy does not automatically justify quashing a criminal FIR.
A breach of contract does not constitute a criminal act unless there is fraudulent intent at the transaction's inception, distinguishing civil liabilities from criminal offences of cheating and breac....
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.