Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L.Victoria Gowri, J
L. Jaisankar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution alleges loan fraud via undervalued mortgage and poa cancellation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioners argue delay, civil nature, counterblast, no criminal ingredients. (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. complainant defends dishonest inducement, no delay bar, needs investigation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. court examines fir ingredients; delay and civil context undermine cheating claim. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. loan does not constitute entrustment for criminal breach of trust. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 6. no conspiracy without principal offenses; cannot convert civil to criminal. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 7. unexplained delay and counterblast justify quashing abuse of process. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 8. fir quashed; criminal process not for civil recovery. (Para 63) |
ORDER :
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Preface:
1.The present Criminal Original Petition presents yet another instance where a monetary transaction secured by registered instruments is sought to be examined through the lens of criminal law. The boundary between a ci
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
