Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (10) TMI 1559 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1221 of 2013.
2. Validity of the order dated 14.02.2017 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
3. Allegations under Sections 420, 406, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Jurisdictional and procedural propriety.
5. Distinction between civil and criminal liability in commercial transactions.

Detailed Analysis:

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:
The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1221 of 2013, arising from Bowbazar Police Station Case No. 168 dated 28.03.2013, under Sections 420, 406, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The court examined whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court noted that the petitioners induced the complainant to invest in their company by making false representations and assurances about the issuance of shares and the prospect of an IPO.

Validity of the Order Dated 14.02.2017:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 14.02.2017, where the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, took cognizance of the offences. The court upheld the order, stating that the allegations in the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and warranted further investigation and trial.

Allegations Under Sections 420, 406, and 120B IPC:
The court referred to Sections 415 and 405 of the IPC, defining cheating and criminal breach of trust, respectively. It concluded that the petitioners' actions, as described in the FIR, constituted inducement through misrepresentation, thus fulfilling the criteria for cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court also found that the allegations of misappropriation and breach of trust under Section 406 IPC were substantiated by the complaint.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Propriety:
The petitioners argued that the FIR was lodged in Calcutta while a similar complaint was pending in Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. The court dismissed this contention, noting that the complaint in Tis Hazari was dismissed and that the complainant was not barred from initiating fresh proceedings in Calcutta. The court emphasized that the FIR in Calcutta was not an abuse of the judicial process.

Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Liability:
The petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil, arising from a commercial transaction, and did not amount to criminal offences. The court rejected this argument, stating that the FIR disclosed elements of criminality, including deceit and dishonest inducement, which went beyond a mere breach of contract. The court emphasized that the presence of a commercial transaction does not preclude the possibility of criminal liability if fraudulent intent and misrepresentation are involved.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings, holding that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court also upheld the validity of the order dated 14.02.2017 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, and clarified that the observations in the judgment should not influence the trial court's proceedings. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates