Back
K. SURENDER
Habib Abdul Razzaq Baghdadi @ Hadi Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Criminal Petition No.12942 of 2018 is filed to quash the proceedings in FIR No.249 of 2018, dated 20.08.2018 on the file of Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against these petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A4, A9 and seven others. In the complaint, it is alleged that he purchased 500 sq.yds plot situated at Hi-Grove County County in Manneguda Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District on 21.05.2018 through GPA holder A-12. The owner was A11. It is alleged that A9/M/s.Hira Multi Construction Ventures Private Limited represented by A1 to A4 converted land into non-agricultural land for the purpose of residential plots for construction of houses. A11 purchased a plot on 20.11.2010. In the year 2015, A11 visited the site and found that Golf Course was coming up. Then A11 approached A2 and enquired about his plot from A2, who gave assurance that when the project would be complete, the cost of plot would increase several times. However, A11 through A12 sold the plot to the defacto complainant by way of registered sale deed dated 21.05.2018.
3. The 2nd respo
Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of dishonest intent from inception, distinguishing breach of contract from criminal offence.
Fraudulent intent must be established for criminal liability in financial transactions, distinguishing between civil breaches of contract and criminal offenses like cheating.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC requires the presence of fraudulent or dishonest intention to induce delivery of....
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not permit quashing proceedings when prima facie evidence of a crime is present, mandating a trial to ascertain truth.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations do not disclose a prima facie case of a criminal offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for allegations to constitute a cognizable offense and the application of the legal maxim 'Caveat Emptor' in property transactions.
The court quashed the FIR as it lacked evidence and constituted a civil dispute improperly framed as a criminal matter.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, there must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and the absence ....
The court ruled that ongoing civil litigation does not preclude criminal prosecutions where sufficient evidence indicates dishonest intent constituting an offence under Section 420 IPC.
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
