Skip to main content

If allegations involve both civil and criminal dispute then criminal proceedings cannot be quashed

In Harimohan Pawaiya v. State of M.P. & Anr., the matter before the Hon'ble MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT GWALIOR BENCH, was that an FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 on 28.02.2010 alleging therein that the applicant is engaged in the business of sale of second hand vehicles. The complainant had agreed to purchase two old Maruti 800 cars and, therefore, he had given Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant. The applicant had given the original papers of the said cars but the delivery of the vehicles was not given on the ground that some repairing works are still required to be done. However, even after passing of about 2 years neither the applicant has refunded the amount nor has given the delivery of two old Maruti 800 cars.

On the application of the applicant, the matter was also inquired into by the CSP Jhansi Road, District Gwalior. The CSP by its report dated 15.06.2010 held that although the complainant has stated that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant but he has not produced any documents in support of that contention. On the contrary, a receipt of Rs.50,000/- has been issued by the applicant. It was further opined that on the basis of the documents available on record, it is not proved that the applicant has been given an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. In the light of the inquiry report submitted by the CSP, Jhansi Road, Gwalior, it appears that the police filed the closure report. The respondent after coming to know about filing of the closure report filed an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC and objected to the closure report filed by the police. The Magistrate by considering the complaint as well as the documents furnished with the closure report rejected the closure report filed by the police and took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2012, the applicant filed a criminal revision which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 24.01.2013. Hence, this petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of CrPC.

The Hon'ble High Court referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012), held that if the facts merely discloses the breach of contract or civil dispute then the complainant cannot be permitted to give a colour of criminal offence but where the allegations involve the civil as well as the criminal dispute then the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the case is of civil in nature. If the allegations as made in the FIR are considered on their face value then it would be clear that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the applicant and the original papers of two old Maruti 800 cars were also handed over to the respondent No.2 by the applicant. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that the delivery of the vehicles could not be given because of some technical snag. It is further mentioned that the applicant is neither giving the delivery of the vehicle nor is returning the money.

10. Whether, it is a mere breach of contract or whether there was a mere failure on the part of the applicant to keep his promise is a question, which is to be decided at the Trial. If for one reason or another the applicant was not in a position to give the delivery of two old Maruti 800 cars to the respondent No.2 then he could have refunded the amount so collected by him from the respondent No.2.

11. So far as the report of the CSP as well as the closure report filed by the police are concerned, suffice it to say that the same are not binding upon the Magistrate.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more