Criminal Prosecution - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police

6Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the procedural conflict regarding offences under Section 195A IPC (threatening to give false evidence). The Supreme Court holds that Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence. Consequently, the police have the independent power to register an FIR and investigate under Sections 154/156 CrPC, and the restrictive complaint procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is not applicable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from two separate sets of proceedings. In the first, from Kerala, an FIR was registered under Section 195A IPC after a de facto complainant, who had turned approver in a murder case, was threatened with dire consequences to give false evidence. The accused sought bail, arguing the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC—requi...

Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused

24Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a Trust is not a juristic person capable of being sued. A complaint for a dishonored cheque issued on behalf of a Trust is maintainable against the Trustee who signed it, without needing to array the Trust itself as an accused. The ruling clarifies that vicarious liability attaches directly to the responsible Trustee. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a financial arrangement concerning William Carey University. Facing a crisis, its sponsoring body, ACTS Group, entered an MoU with Orion Education Trust on 12.10.2017 to hand over the university's management. The Respondent, Vijaykumar Agarwal, was Orion's Chairman. In this capacity, he authorized the Appellant, Sankar Padam Thapa, to liaise wit...

Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Cases, Says ‘Sick Company’ Status is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail Card

9Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Cases, Says ‘Sick Company’ Status is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail Card

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not automatically barred against a company declared sick under SICA, even if a restraint order under Section 22A exists. The nature of the restraint and the purpose of the cheque issuance are mixed questions of law and fact to be decided during trial based on evidence. Furthermore, a Magistrate lacks the inherent power to review or recall the issuance of summons. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shree Nagani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., supplied goods to the first respondent, L.D. Industries Ltd., which was declared a sick company by the BIFR. Towards the payment for these supplies, the accused company issued several cheques in 2001, which were subsequently dishonoured due to "insufficient funds"....

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Loan Case, Says Mere Default Doesn’t Make It a Crime

13Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Loan Case, Says Mere Default Doesn’t Make It a Crime

The Supreme Court held that a loan transaction creates a debtor-creditor relationship, and a mere breach of its terms does not automatically constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC without evidence of dishonest intention. The Court clarified that such disputes, arising from commercial transactions, are primarily civil in nature and a preliminary inquiry is permissible before registering an FIR. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a director of M/s Benlon India Ltd., availed three loans from the first respondent, Hero Fincorp, for purchasing machinery. While the first two loans were used for the intended purpose, a fire destroyed the plant shortly after the disbursement of the third loan. Consequently, this third loan was converted into an unsecured corporate loan. Benlon ...

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the quashing of adjudication orders on procedural grounds. Relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal, it ruled that parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, and discharge cannot be sought merely due to pending adjudication. The Court emphasized that prima facie evidence in the complaint justified the trial, rejecting technical objections under CrPC Section 245(2). It clarified that remand for de novo adjudication does not equate to exoneration on merits, ensuring criminal liability remains independent of administrative outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited, M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, and Yogesh Aggarwal (Appellant...

Supreme Court :Threats Alone Can Constitute Extortion “No Need for Money Exchange”| Section 387 IPC

18Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Threats Alone Can Constitute Extortion “No Need for Money Exchange”| Section 387 IPC

The Supreme Court of India ruled that for a prosecution under Section 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary, as this section punishes the act of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt "in order to commit extortion," which is a stage prior to the actual commission of extortion. The High Court's quashing order was set aside because it wrongly emphasized the non-delivery of money, which is not an essential ingredient for an offense under Section 387 IPC. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal filed by M/s. Balaji Traders (appellant-complainant) against a High Court judgment dated June 28, 2024, which quashed a summoning order and proceedings in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant, Prof. Manoj Kumar ...