9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are territorial jurisdiction of the criminal court, abuse of process of the court, and the distinction between civil and criminal remedies in a case of breach of agreement to sell. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court: The Respondent filed a criminal complaint against the Petitioner under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging breach of an agreement to sell a property in Delhi. The trial court held that the agreement took place in Madhepura, giving the Madhepura court territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Abuse of Process of the Court: The Session Judge allowed the revision, opining that a criminal prosecution was not barred despite a civil remedy being available. The Petitioner filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking transfer of the case to a competent court in New Delhi. The Supreme Court found the criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent to be unwarranted, an abuse of the court's process, and liable to be quashed. Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Remedies: After reviewing the pleadings, complaint, and orders, the Supreme Court concluded that the complaint did not establish a case for prosecution under Section 420 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court noted that the complaint lacked averments of fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the Petitioner and that the case was purely a breach of agreement creating civil liability. The Court quashed the complaint, emphasizing that the Respondent could pursue civil remedies available to him. Separate Judgement Delivered: A separate judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court, quashing the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent and directing the Respondent to pursue other civil remedies available.
|
