Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court further observed that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.
Mahesh Langa is a senior journalist who is working for The Hindu as the Joint Editor. He is currently embroiled in controversy regarding an alleged GST fraud case.
“Each promise of marriage would not be considered as a fact of misconception for the purpose of consensual sexual intercourse unless it is established that such promise of marriage was a false promise of marriage on the part of the accused since the beginning of such a relationship.”
It was stated that to attract Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860, the accused must cheat and dishonestly induce the victim to deliver any property to any person or make, alter, or destroy a part of valuable property.
“For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property.”
Credibility of Indians in UAE and of others who seek loans from banks can be prejudicially affected if such alleged frauds are permitted to be perpetrated by the citizens of this country, and when criminal proceedings are initiated, they are quashed without even being investigated”
Allahabad High Court opined that marriage between the appellant and respondent as per Hindu rites and customs in terms of Section 7 of the HMA 1955 itself is not proved and the Trial Court has gravely erred in not considering this aspect of the matter which was implicit in the issues framed by it.
A same act may not amount to cheating and criminal breach of trust at the same time as for cheating, dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction, whereas, for criminal breach of trust, there must exist a relationship between the parties, whereby one party entrusts another with the property as per law, albeit dishonest intention comes later.
Supreme Court said that AICTE itself never claimed that it was dishonestly induced to grant such approvals and that essential link is altogether missing, whereby any such criminal charge of cheating can be sustained against the accused persons.
Kerala High Court said that though the security guard was induced to permit the accused to enter the house due to impersonation, there is no allegation that any damage or harm was caused to the security guard. And, as the person neither cheated nor harmed, the offence of Section 419 IPC cannot be attracted.
Cheating in government exams perpetuates inequalities by favoring those who can afford to pay for leaked exam papers or engage in fraudulent activities, while disadvantaging those who rely on their hard work and merit to succeed.
“We cannot keep our eyes shut and be a mere mute spectator of the fraud, which the builders have played on the home buyers and Noida Authority”
“To make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be right there from the beginning”.
Supreme Court remarked that broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life.
“The right of an Investigating Officer for further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not taken away only because the charge sheet is filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC against the accused.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1960.
Supreme Court said that allowing the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to stand, will be unjust, unfair and oppressive, as the charges were not just similar, but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same.
FIRs were registered on the complaints of homebuyers, who have alleged that Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited, Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited, and their directors/officials, including the applicant have committed offences of cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust in respect of various residential projects in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
The landlord concealed the fact that NDMC’s approval for dismantling work in the premise was not taken, leading to sealing of the premise, where Absolute Barbecque was about to run.
The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts and the Sessions Courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions advanced by counsel on behalf of the accused in the nature of undertakings to keep in deposit/repay any amount while seeking bail in Cheating cases.