ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Bajrang Lal Agarwal, S/o. Lt. Madanlal Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Arun Dev Choudhury, J.)
1. Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. C. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of FIR dated 07.11.2015 registered as Digboi Police Station Case No. 296/15 under Sections 120(B)/406/420/34 of IPC corresponding to GR Case No. 921/2016 pending before the learned Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Margherita, Tinsukia.
3. The brief facts as stated and alleged in the FIR dated 07.11.2015 are recorded herein below:-
Vijayander Kumar and Others –Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
Indian Oil Corporation –Vs- NEPC India Limited and Others
Mohammad Wajid & Anr vs. State of UP and Ors
The court ruled that a civil dispute cannot be criminalized without clear evidence of fraudulent intent, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed where allegations only constitute a civil dispute without intent to cheat.
Civil disputes can involve criminal elements; thus, the existence of a civil remedy does not automatically justify quashing a criminal FIR.
A mere breach of contract does not amount to a criminal offence unless fraudulent intent is established from the outset.
Failure to honour land sale agreement, with buyer aware of tenancy restrictions and advance returned, does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest intention at inception ....
The court clarified that allegations solely involving civil transactions cannot form the basis for criminal charges under IPC Sections 406 and 420 without evidence of fraudulent intent.
The distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences is crucial, with criminal liability requiring proof of dishonest intention from the outset, which was not established in this case.
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.