Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Golmei Gaiphulshillu
Sunil Kumar Sethi – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary (Home) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. heard legal representation for the parties. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's challenge against fir registration. (Para 2) |
| 3. details of petitioner's personal circumstances. (Para 3) |
| 4. petitioner's argument against the complainant's position. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. respondent no. 3's challenges to the petition's validity. (Para 8) |
| 6. controversy over fir registration and its basis. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. legal precedents cited by both parties. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 8. analysis of thought on fir and complaint details. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. legal interpretation of breach of contract versus criminal offense. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. acknowledgment of abuse of legal process in this case. (Para 28) |
| 11. decision to quash the fir based on legal grounds. (Para 29) |
| 12. final disposal of the petition. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Golmei Gaiphulshillu, J.
[1] Heard Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, learned PP appearing for the State and Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 at length.
[2] The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality, correctness a
The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is established, quashing the FIR due to lack of supporting evidence....
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
A mere breach of contract does not preclude a finding of criminal cheating; fraud must be established at the agreement's inception.
The allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under IPC Sections 406 and 420, as they lack essential elements of criminal intent, reflecting a civil dispute instead.
The mere failure to pay for goods in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under IPC without evidence of dishonest intention.
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
