Back
MARLI VANKUNG
Zahnuna S/o Sakhuaa(L) – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG
Heard Mr. T. Lanunsiama, learned counsel for the petitioners along with Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The private respondent no. 6 remained unrepresented in the various court dates though affidavit showing that notice was served to her on through Dasti Service was filed on 05.03.2024.
2. The instant criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973, to quash the First Information Report filed by the respondent no.6 and registered as BK PS Case No. 247/2023 dated 23.03.2023 under Section 420/406/34 IPC against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR dated 23.03.2023 was filed by the informant stating that in the year 2013, the informant had lent a sum of Rs. 160 lakhs to respondent No. 2/Pahlira of Lungmuat and his colleagues at her residence at Chaltlang for doing a contract work i.e., for upgradation of Serkhan – Bagha road which was awarded to the petitioner No. 1/Zahnuna of Zemabawk. Further, she had also borrowed loan amounting to Rs. 160 lakhs from HDFC Bank using her business KTC which was also spent for performing t
The court established that allegations of a civil nature, even if they may suggest a criminal wrong, do not warrant criminal proceedings if they do not disclose a prima facie case of a cognizable off....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between breach of contract and cheating, emphasizing the need for fraudulent and dishonest intention for the offense of cheating to....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the begin....
The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is established, quashing the FIR due to lack of supporting evidence....
Deviation from loan agreements and misappropriation of loan funds constitute a cognizable offence of criminal breach of trust, warranting the registration of an FIR.
A mere breach of contract does not preclude a finding of criminal cheating; fraud must be established at the agreement's inception.
The court ruled that allegations of misappropriation and forgery in the FIR were unfounded, emphasizing that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal litigation.
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
