Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
K. Mohammed Ali – Appellant
Versus
Chinnamma K. M. – Respondent
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in C.C.No.2/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 13 in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in detail. Perused the available records.
3. In the instant case, investigation started when the complainant lodged complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) and under Section 82 of the Registration Act.
4. The prayer herein is to quash the complaint. At the same time, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioners that acting on the complaint, the learned Magistrate proceeded further and took cognizance of the matter and issued summons by another separate order and the said order is not produced. The precise allegation of the prosecutio
The court ruled that mere execution of a sale deed does not constitute forgery unless it is proven that the document was made with fraudulent intent to mislead, while a prima facie case under Section....
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....
To attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document. The court also emphasized the importance of providing due opportunity to address arguments and the limitations....
Execution of a legally valid document with disputed stamp duty does not constitute forgery or fraud under IPC.
Point of Law : It is only when criminal proceedings for offence under Section 177 of IPC is initiated that the requirement under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. would come into play. [Para 19]
The court emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences, quashing the FIR due to lack of criminal intent in the allegations.
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 ....
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
