Skip to main content

Criminal as well as Civil liability simultaneously - Section 482 - high court

Vijayander Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 389

 Criminal Law
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
 S. 482 - Quashment - Criminal as well as civil liability - A given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to informant/ complainant that itself cannot be a
ground to quash a criminal proceeding - Real test is whether allegations in complaint disclose a criminal offence or not, (2014) 3 SCC 389-A
 
 Criminal Law
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
 S. 482 - Quashment - Informant firm was to receive a sum of Rs 47,28,115.80 from appellants - Appellants through a demand draft for Rs 10 lakhs and returned cotton yarn worth Rs 13,26,560 settled the dues in part and for the remaining
dues they persuaded the informant to accept four post-dated cheques issued by new Director SS - When informant presented cheque for a sum of Rs 5 lakhs through his bank, said cheque was dishonoured because accused SS had got
the payment of cheque stopped - Informant alleged that he would not have signed said papers nor received post-dated cheques but for assurances given by appellant-accused persons - That all the accused by mutual consent (conspiracy)
have played a fraud and cheated him by making false statement and holding out false assurances whereby they induced him to sign some papers - Allegedly accused had full knowledge even before issuing cheques that these shall not be
honoured and they had such dishonest intention from the beginning - Police submitted final report to the effect that the case is of civil nature - CJM rejected final report and after hearing parties took cognizance of offence under S. 420 r/w S. 120-B IPC against all accused - Appellants contended that allegations and averments do not make out any criminal offence - Complaint filed against appellants under NI Act stood quashed by High Court on the basis that they had not issued cheques in question - On an earlier occasion High Court declined to interfere with order of CJM taking cognizance of offence under S. 420 r/w S. 120 IPC - Held, facts were properly appreciated by High Court on earlier occasion while examining petition preferred by appellants for quashing of FIR of this case - Same view has been reiterated by High Court - Informant and witnesses have supported allegations made in FIR, and it would not be proper to evaluate merit of allegations on basis of documents annexed with memo of appeal - Such materials can be produced by appellants in their defence in accordance with law for due consideration at appropriate stage - There is no good ground to interfere with criminal proceedings against appellants at this stage, (2014) 3 SCC 389-B
 
 Criminal Law
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
 S. 482 - Exercise of power by High Court - Scope of - Principles reiterated, (2014) 3 SCC 389-C
 
 Criminal Law
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
 S. 482 - Maintainability of second petition at different stage of proceedings - First petition under S. 482 CrPC for quashment of FIR dismissed by High Court - Appellants contended that a second petition under S. 482 CrPC can be entertained because, order of Magistrate taking cognizance gives rise to a new cause of action - Informant has not raised any objection to maintainability of petition, therefore, issue does not require any deliberation, (2014) 3 SCC 389-D

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a