Back
K. SURENDER
Rafeeq Akbani – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Criminal Petition No. 1690 of 2018 is filed by A1 and Criminal Petition No. 1689 of 2018 is filed by A2 and A3 for quashing the proceedings against them in Crime No. 109 of 2017 pending investigation before the CCS, Hyderabad.
2. The defacto complainant approached the Commissioner of Police, CCS and filed written complaint on 21.07.2017 which was registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 of IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners approached the defacto complainant for purchase of refined edible oils. Petitioners promised to pay cost of the supplied material within 15 days from the date of supply and also assured interest at the rate of 24% per annum if the payment goes beyond the promised date. Believing the representation and assurance given by the petitioners, from 20.12.2014 to 06.02.2015 against 9 invoices, oil was supplied. Prior to the said transactions initially amounts were paid within time from the date of purchase and thereafter started making payments belatedly and callously. Thereafter, the petitioners denied to payment of major amounts. On verification of the accounts, the total outstanding was Rs. 1,00,24,069/-. For not pay
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for breach of contract or promise in business transactions, and the intention to cheat must be present from the inception of the transactions to constitute th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of cheating requires the establishment of deceitful intention and mens rea of the accused, and a deliberate intention to cause ....
Civil disputes lack criminal intent necessary for cheating charges under IPC.
The main legal point established is that for the offence of cheating, there must be fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, and every breach of contract would not amount ....
Criminal liability under contract disputes requires proof of dishonest intention from inception; mere breach does not constitute a criminal offence.
Mere breach of contract without initial fraudulent intent does not constitute an offence under IPC sections 406 or 420.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute criminal liability under IPC unless fraudulent intent is established at the time of inducement.
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
