9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to judgment allowing Criminal Revision Petition against order framing charges under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 IPC.
Background: Appellant-company entered agreements with respondents for lease of vehicles, alleging non-payment of lease rent, illegal sale of vehicles, criminal breach of trust, and cheating. Charges framed by Judicial Magistrate, challenged in Criminal Revision Petition. High Court's Decision: High Court found framing of charge not sustainable, noting absence of criminal intention and remedial actions taken by respondents. Emphasized lack of mental evil design for fraud, civil dispute nature, and retrieval of agreement. Appellant's Argument: Appellant's counsel argued High Court's conclusions indefensible, highlighting no requirement for unimpeachable offence for conviction. Stressed on re-possession rights, personal guarantees, and intention to prevent re-possession. Respondents' Submission: Respondents' counsel justified High Court's decision, citing background facts, lack of criminal intent, partial payment, permission to sell vehicles, and encashment of bank guarantee. Argued against fraud due to absence of seminal intent and civil dispute nature. Legal Principles: Citing legal precedents, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a prima facie case to frame charges, not requiring certainty of conviction at that stage. Referred to Sections 227, 239, and 245 dealing with discharge from criminal charges. Court's Decision: Court held High Court erred in interfering with framing of charges, stating strong suspicion of offence and accused involvement is adequate for charge framing. Set aside High Court's order, allowing the appeal.
|
