9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Petition filed under Section 561, Cr. P.C. by Directors of a business concern accused of cheating, seeking quashing of proceedings. 2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy, fraud, and cheating in inducing complainant to part with goods without intention to pay. 3. Dispute over jurisdiction and whether the complaint discloses an offense of cheating justifying the issuance of process. 4. Comparison with a previous case to determine the applicability of legal principles. 5. Analysis of civil transaction versus criminal liability in breach of contract situations. Analysis: 1. The petitioners, Directors of the business concern, sought to quash the proceedings against them, arguing that the complaint did not disclose any offense. The complaint alleged a criminal conspiracy where the accused induced the complainant to part with goods worth a substantial amount without the intention to pay, leading to wrongful loss for the complainant. 2. The issue of jurisdiction was raised, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as the alleged occurrence took place in Calcutta, outside its jurisdiction. The complainant argued that the case was similar to a previous judgment and justified the issuance of process. The key question was whether the facts in the complaint constituted an offense of cheating. 3. The court analyzed a previous case to determine its relevance to the present situation. It highlighted that in the current case, there was no complaint from the Bank on whom the alleged fraud was practiced, indicating a different fact situation. The court emphasized the lack of evidence to establish a direct contract between the petitioners and the complainant, leading to the conclusion that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. 4. The court further examined the nature of the transactions between the parties, emphasizing that any breach of contract would not create criminal liability unless there was clear evidence of deceit independent of the civil transactions. It cited legal principles stating that not every immoral act amounts to a crime, and civil wrongs can be addressed by civil courts without criminal prosecution. 5. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings against the accused Directors. It concluded that the facts did not establish an offense of cheating justifying the continuation of the criminal proceedings, emphasizing the distinction between civil transactions and criminal liability in breach of contract scenarios.
|
