SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1404

Supreme Court Of India
B.N. AGRAWAL AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.
HOTLINE TELETUBES AND COMPONENTS-Appellants
LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1225 of 2002,
Decided on November 4, 2004

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Article 136 - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 406 and 420 - Quashing of proceedings-High Court dismissed the petition under S. 482 of the Code- Allegation that the complainant supplied goods to the accused persons, but they failed to pay the price -There was no whisper in the complaint that at the very inception of the contract between the parties, there was any intention to cheat- Held that it was a case of purely civil liability and no criminal offence was disclosed- Therefore order of the High Court set aside and prosecution against the appellant quashed. [Para 2]

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Patna High Court, refusing to quash their prosecution under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). In the complaint petition, it has been alleged that the complainant supplied goods to the accused persons, but they failed to pay the price therefor. There is no whisper in the complaint that at the very inception of the contract between the parties, there was any intention to cheat. It appears from a bare perusal of the complaint that it is a case of purely civil liability and no criminal offence is disclosed, much less offences either under Section 406 or 420 IPC. So far as the High Court is concerned, it has not considered this aspect of the matter, but has refused to quash the prosecution observing that it was a fit case where parties should take steps for settlement. In our view, allowing such prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same, it would be just and expedient to quash the same.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and prosecution of the appellants is hereby quashed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top