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 - 1987 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1987 (7) TMI 595 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Quashing of complaint under Sections 406, 415, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Setting aside of First Information Report under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:
In the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Judge Pritpal Singh, two connected petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were addressed. The first petition sought to quash a complaint filed by the Respondent under various sections of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. The second petition aimed to set aside a First Information Report recorded at the Police Station against the Petitioner on the same facts. The allegations revolved around the supply of carpet woolen yarn by the Respondent to the Petitioner, followed by the dishonoring of cheques issued by the Petitioner for the payment of the goods.

The judgment referred to a previous ruling in Iqbal Singh Randhawa v. Doctor Satpal Goyal, establishing that an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is distinct from an offence under Section 420. It highlighted that an accused cannot be tried for both offences simultaneously, as they represent different criminal acts. Another precedent cited was the judgment in Chhote Lal Aggarwal v. The State of Punjab, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between a cheque issued to discharge an existing liability and a cheque issued against delivery of goods. The former may constitute a breach of promise, while the latter could indicate an intention to cheat.

The Court analyzed the facts of the case and concluded that the cheques issued by the Petitioner were to discharge a pre-existing liability, not against the delivery of goods. Therefore, the dishonoring of the cheques amounted to a breach of promise, constituting a civil liability rather than a criminal offence under Section 406 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned complaint, the First Information Report, and all related proceedings in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, based on this interpretation of the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates