whether failure to pay rent amounts to criminal offence?

 We are of the opinion that no criminal offence is made out, even if we accept the factual assertions made in the complaint, which was registered as the First Information Report. Failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). Mandatory legal requirements for the offence of cheating under Section 415 and that of misappropriation under Section 403 IPC are missing.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2022

NEETU SINGH & ORS. Vs STATE  OF U.P.

CORAM:SANJIV KHANNA; BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ. 

DATED: MARCH 07,2022 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Liability for Criminal offence depends on the role one plays in the affairs of the company and not on mere designation or status

 We may notice that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was inserted in Negotiable Instruments Act by amendment in the year 1988 contains the same conditions for a person to be proceeded with and punished for offence as contained in Section 68 of FERA, 1973. Section 141(1) of Negotiable Instruments Act uses the same expression "every person, who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence". Section 68 of FERA, 1973 as well as Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with the offences by the companies in the same manner. The ratio of the judgments of this Court on Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act as noted above are also clearly relevant while interpreting Section 68 of FERA Act. We, thus, hold that for proceeding against a Director of a company for contravention of provisions of FERA, 1973, the necessary ingredient for proceeding shall be that at the time offence was committed, the Director was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The liability to be proceeded with for offence Under Section 68 of FERA, 1973 depends on the role one plays in the affairs of the company and not on mere designation or status.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2463 of 2014

Decided On: 27.07.2020

Shailendra Swarup Vs.  The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0544/2020

Print Page

When offence of carrying on money lending business is not proved?

In view of the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish by cogent and convincing evidence that the petitioner was carrying on money lending business. The oral evidence adduced is discrepant in nature. There is no clinching documentary evidence in support of the prosecution case in order to attract the ingredients of the offence under section 19 of the 1939 Act which, inter alia, requires that the money-lender must be carrying on business without being registered as a money lender. The petitioner has not disputed that he was not a registered money lender but he has denied the prosecution case that he was carrying any money lending business. The word "business" denotes a continuous and systematic exercise of activity with essential characteristic of profit motive. It is a transaction or a course of dealings between two persons not for sport or pleasure. One or two stray incidents of advancing loan to the needy persons cannot be termed as "business". Therefore, in absence of any specific materials that the petitioner was continuously lending money to different persons with an object of profit making, the ingredients of the offence under section 19 of the 1939 Act are not attracted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

Criminal Revision No. 215 of 2001

Decided On: 01.12.2016

 Suryanarayan Behera

Vs.

Ganesh Majhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.K. Sahoo, J.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ 641 Orissa

Print Page

When breach of trust will be civil wrong and when it will be criminal offence?

 Every act of breach of trust may not be resulted in a penal offence
of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of
fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil
wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages
in civil courts but any breach of trust with a  mens rea  gives rise to a
criminal prosecution as well. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 7630 of 2015

PARTHKUMAR RAMNIKLAL KALAVADIYA & 
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 09/12/2016

Print Page

Whether criminal offence is made out if public work is alloted by govt servant in violation of circulars?

It
stipulates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of
criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public
servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage. Thus, the ingredients which will be
required to be proved are:
(1) The public servant has abused his position.
(2) By abusing that position, he has obtained for himself or for
any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. In C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193,
this Court held that even when codal violations were established
and it was also proved that there were irregularities committed by
allotting/ awarding the work in violation of circulars, that by itself
was not sufficient to prove that a criminal case was made out. The
Court went on to hold:
“22. On a careful consideration of the material on
the record, we are of the opinion that though the
prosecution has established that the appellants
have committed not only codal violations but also
irregularities by ignoring various circulars and
departmental orders issued from time to time in the
matter of allotment of work of jungle clearance on
nomination basis and have committed
departmental lapse yet, none of the circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution are of any
conclusive nature and all the circumstances put
together do not lead to the irresistible conclusion
that the said circumstances are compatible only

with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants
and wholly incompatible with their innocence. In
Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of
Goa, Daman and Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110, under
somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined
that mere disregard of relevant provisions of the
Financial Code as well as ordinary norms of
procedural behaviour of government officials and
contractors, without conclusively establishing,
beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the officials
and contractors concerned, may give rise to a
strong suspicion but that cannot be held to
establish the guilt of the accused. The established
circumstances in this case also do not establish
criminality of the appellants beyond the realm of
suspicion and, in our opinion, the approach of the
trial court and the High Court to the requirements of
proof in relation to a criminal charge was not
proper....”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2007
A. SIVAPRAKASH 
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA .
Dated:MAY 10, 2016

Print Page

Whether criminal offence can be inherited by legal heirs of deceased accused?

 It is well settled law that a criminal culpable offence shall not be inherited by their heirs.  Once the accused died, the charge against the accused has been dismissed as abates.  So the first respondent in his counter has stated that the Lakshmi Metal Works has been inherited by his son and so they are necessary accused, does not merit acceptance.  The investigating agency without knowing the basic thing and without applying its mind had filed the charge sheet against A4, who is only the legal heir of the deceased A1. So the proceedings against A4 is liable to be quashed.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
 DATED : 04.02.2016
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA
Crl.O.P.No.19324 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015

  M/s.Lakshmi Metal Works  V State rep. by.
     The Inspector of Police
    Citation: 2016 CRLJ 2730

Print Page

Whether husband who is abducting wife from house of paramour is entitled to get benefit of probation of offenders Act?

The facts are indeed peculiar. The daughter-in-law left  the matrimonial home and started living with her brother-in-law (husband's sister husband). The accused were disturbed as this act had brought shame to the family. There is no evidence on record that Amarjeet had taken divorce from her husband Nirmail Singh at that point of time. In a bid to take the daughter-in-law back, the accused had taken law in their hands. Amarjeet Kaur had grown up children. Her son i.e. Paramjit Singh is the accused. The others accused are closely related. They are facing the agony of criminal proceedings for the last about thirteen years. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants deserve lenient view in the matter of sentence and it is a fit case to grant probation. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is maintained. The appellants are directed to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders' Act, 1958 for a period of one year subject to their furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- within one month to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The appellants shall undertake to keep peace and good behaviour during the aforesaid period of probation and shall appear before the trial Court as and when called upon to undergo the remaining sentence during the said period, in case of violation of any condition. On the failure to furnish the bonds, the appeals shall be deemed to be dismissed. Fine, if not paid, shall be deposited and be treated as cost of proceedings.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Chhinder Pal Singh vs State Of Pb on 4 December, 2015

Coram;MRS ANITA CHAUDHRY J

Citation;2016 CRLJ1776 P&H HC

Print Page

Whether not treating daughter in law with respect amounts to offence punishable under S 498A of IPC?

It appears that after almost a period of three years the
first informant thought fit to lodge the FIR. Rude and
uncultured behaviour as well as perfunctory abuses are
mundane matters and would not attract the rigors of Section
498A of the IPC. There has to be something more to attract
Section 498A of the IPC. Even if I accept the entire case of the
prosecution, there is nothing against the father-in-law and the
married sister-in-law. Whatever little has been alleged is
against the mother-in-law, and that too, hurling of abuses,
using of perfunctory words, etc. They may be morally guilty of
not treating the daughter-in-law with respect in an Indian
society, but such moral acts fall short of an offence under
Section 498A of the IPC.
R/CR.MA/4899/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4899 of 2015

HARESH LALSINGH GADHAVI  V STATE OF GUJARAT & 


CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 24/11/2015

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can make out more serious offence than offence for which accused has surrendered?

In the second place, when the petitioners surrendered before

the Magistrate, and invoked the Magistrate's jurisdiction, it was open for
the Magistrate to form a prima facie opinion, on the material placed before
him, as to what offence the petitioners are alleged to have committed. The
Magistrate was of the view that, an offence punishable under Section 67-A
of the I.T. Act was also disclosed, and this finding of the Magistrate was
invited by the petitioners themselves by surrendering before the
Magistrate. It is not possible to accept that, the petitioners were entitled to

surrender before the Magistrate invoking jurisdiction and make him form
an opinion on the merits of the matter, but that, the formation of such
opinion must be according to what the petitioners desire. Once they had
approached the Magistrate, they could not prevent him from forming an
opinion that, more serious offence or a different one, had been, prima
facie, committed by the petitioners.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1236 of 2013
 Atul s/o. Manchakrao Jadhav,


versus
 The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(cri) 257
DATE : 6TH JANUARY 2014

Print Page