9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition to quash criminal proceedings for cheating based on the ground that the complaint does not disclose any offense. Analysis: The judgment by Newsam J. delves into the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to prevent abuse of the legal process, as outlined in Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. It emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between civil wrongs and criminal offenses, particularly in business dealings where actions may be morally questionable but not necessarily criminal. The judgment highlights that not every immoral act constitutes a crime, and attempting to create new crimes to enforce high standards of probity in business is an abuse of the legal system. The case in question involved a petitioner who owed a substantial amount to a firm for petrol and oil. Despite issuing a post-dated cheque that was later dishonored, the firm delayed filing a complaint of cheating for several months. The judgment analyzes the elements of the offense of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the need for both deception and dishonest inducement. It concludes that the delay in filing a suit by the firm did not demonstrate that they were induced by the petitioner's actions, as required to establish the offense of cheating. Additionally, the judgment notes that the complaint failed to show any harm or damage caused by the petitioner's actions, rendering it insufficient to support criminal proceedings. Ultimately, Newsam J. allowed the petition to quash the proceedings, citing that the complaint did not disclose any offense but was filed to intimidate the petitioner. The judgment dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the allegations of cheating.
|
