Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
H. S. Narula – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, lerned counsel for applicants, Sri Ravindra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Applicants before this Court are owners of one M/s DSC Ltd.
3. At this stage it is not under dispute that aforesaid Company had executed an agreement dated 18.5.2012 with complainant's company for construction of residential units at Meerut. It was the case of complainant that on a promise of regular payment, they had invested about Rs.13 lakhs for construction, however, said payment was not made and later on company's construction material was also confiscated.
4. It is further case of complainant that a civil suit was filed at the behest of complainant in the year 2013 against present applicants for permanent injunction. Said civil suit is still pending where applicants are appearing. It is further case of complainant that on 20.10.2019, applicants have proposed for a settlement and to put pressure to enter into an agreement on a very minimum amount. Complainant alleged that it was modus operandi of applicants to put pressure on small construction companies to negotiate
The court ruled that a complaint for criminal breach of trust filed after the limitation period is barred, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
Abuse of process of law in invoking criminal proceedings for a civil dispute.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are purely civil, especially where the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not met.
A mere breach of a promise, agreement, or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustmen....
A commercial dispute cannot be criminalized under IPC sections unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are satisfied.
Criminal proceedings cannot be pursued for a purely civil dispute, especially when arbitration is pending, unless criminal intent is clear, otherwise it constitutes an abuse of the legal process.
The exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. requires the allegations to prima facie constitute an offence, the absence of mala fide intentions, and the presence of a legal bar for....
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
