Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Md. Mejaj Alam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through C. B. I. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing notice and procedural order for jointly listed cases. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. nature of charges and allegations against the petitioners. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments concerning the insufficiency of evidence in the discharge applications. (Para 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. legal precedents and standards for deciding discharge petitions. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. court's analysis on the validity and evidence against the petitioners affirming the charge. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final orders confirming the dismissal of petitions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. In both the cases, the order can be dictated today as both the cases are arising out of same F.I.R with consent of the parties.
2. Both these cases are listed today at sl.nos.19 and 20 respectively under the heading ‘Fresh Filing’ and both the cases are arising out of the same F.I.R and in view of that, both the cases are being heard together.
3. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.Rev.No. 675 of 2023 and Mr. Lukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.Rev. No. 748 of 2023 and Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned A.S.G.I appearing on behalf of the
The court ruled that mere failure to keep a promise cannot constitute cheating; intention to deceive must exist at the time of the promise.
To establish an offence under Section 420 IPC, fraudulent intent must be shown; mere verification of a false affidavit without intent does not constitute cheating.
The court reiterated that charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot coexist for the same transaction and emphasized cautious exercise of powers to quash proceedings, only to prevent abuse of proc....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless it is shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the transaction, and a prima facie case must be establis....
The court established that allegations of cheating and forgery require a clear demonstration of fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction, and that the existence of a civil remedy does not pre....
The court upheld the necessity of trial for charges framed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing that prima facie evidence supports the petitioner’s involvement in fraudulent acti....
A person cannot be charged with both cheating and criminal breach of trust for the same transaction; the prosecution must prove the specific elements of each offence beyond reasonable doubt.
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
