Tag: Section 120B IPC

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case
26Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case

In this judgment, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellants based on the principle of parity. Since co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted relief under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court—a decision which had attained finality—the Court held the same benefit must extend to the appellants. Facts Of The Case: Vasanthi, sister of respondent No. 2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs from appellant No. 2 (accused No. 5). As security for the said loan, Vasanthi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No. 1 (accused No. 4) concerning a property measuring 1980 sq. ft. situated at Villanur Revenue Village. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of h...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Deal Fraud Case Citing Civil Settlement
21Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Deal Fraud Case Citing Civil Settlement

In this judgment, the Supreme Court exercised its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings solely against the appellant, based on a full and final settlement between the private parties. The Court clarified that such quashing would not impede the prosecution of other accused, who must be pursued independently. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a dispute over the sale of a plot of land in Burari, Delhi. Respondent No. 2, while searching for land to build a house, was introduced by the appellant, Mool Chand, who claimed to be a reputed real estate agent. The appellant represented that he had an encumbrance-free plot suitable for the complainant, owned by his associate, accused No. 2, who needed urgent funds. Consequently,...
Read More
Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed merely because a financial settlement or one-time settlement has been reached with the bank. Such offences constitute a crime against society at large, and quashing would be contrary to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered in 2015 following a complaint by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The bank alleged that M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. had fraudulently secured credit facilities of ₹60 crores by submitting fabricated work orders and financial statements to project a false financial standing. An internal inquiry later declared the account a Non-Performing Asset, uncovering an alleged fraud of...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed

The Supreme Court held that at the quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate evidence. If the complaint and prima facie documents disclose cognizable offences, the prosecution must proceed to trial. The merits of allegations, including forgery and cheating, are to be tested through evidence, not nipped in the bud. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Komal Prasad Shakya, filed a criminal complaint alleging that Rajendra Singh, who had always identified as a General Category 'Sikh', fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Caste ('Sansi') certificate just before the 2008 Guna Assembly elections. Using this certificate, he contested and won from a reserved constituency. The complaint accused Rajendra Singh, his father Amrik Singh, and others in...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Says Mere Breach of Contract Isn’t Cheating
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Says Mere Breach of Contract Isn’t Cheating

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, holding that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence absent proof of dishonest intent at the inception. The allegations disclosed only a civil dispute, and continuing criminal prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Arshad Neyaz Khan, entered into an agreement to sell his property to the complainant, Md. Mustafa, in February 2013 for a consideration of Rs. 43,00,000, out of which an advance of Rs. 20,00,000 was paid. Nearly eight years later, in January 2021, the complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging that the appellant had failed to either transfer the property or refund the advance amount, accusing him of cheating, crimin...
Read More
Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Criminal Law to Settle Civil Disputes, Quashes Proceedings
4Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Criminal Law to Settle Civil Disputes, Quashes Proceedings

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC, ruling that a mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating. The essential ingredient of a dishonest intention at the inception of the agreement was absent. Allegations of supplying non-conforming goods disclosed only a civil dispute, not a criminal offense, making the FIR unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a business transaction dated 12.12.2017, where M/s Soma Stone Crusher (complainant) agreed to purchase a 'sand rrulla machine' from M/s Saini Engineering Works, run by Sarabjit Singh. An advance of ₹5,00,000 was paid via cheque. The complainant alleged that the appellant, Paramjeet Singh, acting on behalf of his brother, had assured that the machine would meet specific specifications (...
Read More
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Highlights Importance of Fair Trial in Corruption Cases
14Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Highlights Importance of Fair Trial in Corruption Cases

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning the High Court's conviction under Sections 7, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B IPC. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, citing material contradictions, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural lapses in the trap proceedings. It emphasized the double presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals and ruled that conjectures cannot substitute legal proof. The judgment reaffirmed that mere recovery of tainted money, without conclusive proof of demand, is insufficient for conviction under anti-corruption laws. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M. Sambasiva Rao, an Assistant Administrative Officer at United India Insu...
Read More
No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case
22Jul By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 415, and 420 IPC against respondents for allegedly fabricating a partition deed and family tree to exclude daughters from property compensation. It ruled that pendency of civil suits does not bar criminal prosecution if a prima facie case exists. The Court emphasized that criminal conspiracy and cheating must be tried independently, reinstating the trial court’s proceedings. The judgment reaffirms that civil and criminal remedies can coexist, ensuring accountability for fraudulent deprivation of property rights. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around a dispute over compensation amounting to ₹33 crores awarded by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation for ancestral land purchased by K...
Read More