Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Palvai Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.5047 of 2022 pending on the file of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
02. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 as well as Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. Perused the record.
03. Brief facts of the case are that there was an understanding between the accused No.3 and the complainant in respect of sale of Flat No.F2, First Floor, B-5, Road No.2, Phase-I, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. In pursuant to the said understanding, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the accused No.3 towards advance sale consideration. The agreed total sale consideration was Rs.50,00,000/-. Thereafter, the possession of the above said property was delivered in favour of the complainant in the month of March, 2007. The accused No.3 without coming forward for execution of sale deed, de
The court held that allegations against the petitioner-accused No.4 did not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC due to lack of fraudulent intent.
To establish an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be delivery of property to the person deceived; mere allegations without this element do not suffice.
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
Sale of undivided joint property share by co-sharers without dishonest intention at inception does not constitute cheating; third-party complainant lacks standing absent purchaser grievance; proceedi....
Distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating and held that breach of contract could not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, but fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis ....
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.
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
