CrPC Section 482 - The Legal Chamber

Marriage Dead: Supreme Court Dissolves Union, Quashes 498A Case in Landmark Irretrievable Breakdown Ruling

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Marriage Dead: Supreme Court Dissolves Union, Quashes 498A Case in Landmark Irretrievable Breakdown Ruling

The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. It quashed the pending criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, finding the allegations to be vague and arising from marital discord, while upholding the terms of a settlement agreement for a clean break. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between Anurag Goel (appellant-husband) and the second respondent (wife) took place on July 25, 2015, following prior divorces for both. After approximately one year and nine months of conjugal life, the relationship soured. The husband alleged constant harassment, leading him to abandon the matrimonial home—a Mumbai apartment he owned—in April 2017 to move to Faridabad with his autistic child fro...

Supreme Court Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction: Court Where Payee’s Bank is Located Has Power

22Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction: Court Where Payee’s Bank is Located Has Power

The Supreme Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, jurisdiction for a cheque dishonour case lies exclusively with the court where the payee's bank branch (for collection) is situated, not where the cheque was physically deposited for credit. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Prakash Chimanlal Sheth, filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning four cheques issued by the respondent, Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat. These cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant, who maintained his bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank's Bendurwell Branch in Mangalore, had presented the cheques for collection through the bank's Opera House Branch in Mumbai to be credited to his Mangalore account. The Jud...

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

26May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...

Civil Dispute, Not Crime: SC Quashes FIR Against Businessman Calls It a Contract Issue

1May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Civil Dispute, Not Crime: SC Quashes FIR Against Businessman Calls It a Contract Issue

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR alleging cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), holding that unpaid export transactions constituted a civil dispute, not a criminal offense. The Court emphasized that mere breach of contract, without dishonest intent at inception, cannot attract criminal liability. It ruled that the exporter (M/s. Oswal Overseas), not the accused, was the entrusted party, and the complainant failed to establish fraudulent inducement or entrustment under Sections 405/415 IPC. The judgment reaffirmed that criminal proceedings cannot remedy purely contractual disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a business dispute between Ashok Kumar Jain (appellant), director of a Sri Lankan export-import firm, and a Gujarat-based textile trader...