Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Shibu K – Appellant
Versus
C.S.Padam Chand – Respondent
ORDER :
M.Nirmal Kumar, J.
The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 23.07.2024, in Crl.M.P.No.17288 of 2024, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai- 08.
2. Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Film Producer. In 2018, he produced a film titled, 'Saamy 2,' directed by Hari and acted by Vikram. He invested a lot for the production of the said film. Thereafter, he gave area wise distribution right to various distributors who approached him to buy the film. The petitioner gave Chengalpat area to one M/s.Volmart rep. by Mr.Sai Baba for the consideration of Rs.6,00,00,000/-. For that purpose, a Minimum Guarantee Agreement, dated 27.08.2018, was executed with him. The 1st respondent also entered into a Minimum Guarantee Agreement, dated 05.09.2018, with the petitioner's Thameems Films for distribution of “Saamy 2” in Chennai City area. Similarly, the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 20.09.2018 with C.S. Padam Chand by giving him distribution right of the said film for the areas of
Suppression of material facts in legal proceedings renders orders obtained non est in law, emphasizing the need for transparency in judicial processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific details in a complaint to establish a criminal offence, the need for fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offence ....
Point of law: Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations....
The judgment established that a mere breach of contract does not necessarily warrant criminal prosecution under Section 420 IPC, and emphasized the importance of a dishonest intention to deceive at t....
The court established that a civil dispute can coexist with criminal allegations, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not negate the possibility of criminal liability if the complaint discl....
The court affirmed that an FIR under Section 420 IPC is not maintainable without prima facie evidence of dishonest intent or fraud, as mere contractual disputes do not constitute criminal cheating.
Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. Considering the allegations made in the c....
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
