Economic Offences - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Cheating Case, Slams Accused for “Misleading Courts”

19Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Cheating Case, Slams Accused for “Misleading Courts”

The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders, emphasizing that the grant of bail must consider the totality of circumstances, including the accused's conduct and antecedents. The Court held that lower courts erred by ignoring relevant factors and precedents, and by granting bail mechanically without proper application of mind to the material on record. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a criminal complaint alleging that the accused respondents, a husband and wife, had cheated them of ₹1.9 crores by promising to transfer a piece of land that was already mortgaged and sold to a third party. An FIR was subsequently registered. The accused sought anticipatory bail, and the High Court granted them interim protection for nearly four years, during which media...

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

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...