Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN
Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, ‘the CrPC’) to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.45 of 2016 dated 27.04.2016 pending on the file of P.S. Kowtala, Kowtala Mandal, Adilabad District.
Facts of the case:-
3. The petitioners herein are A.1, A.2 and A.4. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 406, 420, 447 and 504, 120-B and 294 (b) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). On the complaint dated 27.04.2016, lodged by 2nd respondent, P.S. Kowtala have registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2016 against the petitioners herein and A.3.
4. As per the complaint dated 27.04.2016 of 2nd respondent, the allegations leveled against the petitioner and A.3 are as that it is in the business of constructi
Suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from relief; courts should not quash FIRs unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Allegations of dishonest misappropriation and breach of trust in contractual agreements can sustain criminal liability under IPC, irrespective of the civil nature of disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between breach of contract and cheating, emphasizing the need for fraudulent and dishonest intention for the offense of cheating to....
The court affirmed that a party only involved in a civil contract cannot face criminal liability unless it directly transacted or misappropriated funds, supporting the need for a clear distinction be....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to fulfill contractual obligations can constitute cheating under Section 415 IPC if it causes harm to the other party.
The judgment established that not every breach of contract amounts to a criminal offence and emphasized the importance of the presence of deception and dishonesty at the inception of a transaction to....
Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is established from the outset, as per 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
