Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 485 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of FIR - main contention of the Petitioners is that, this being a transaction which is purely civil in nature, the Respondent No.2 could not have lodged the FIR. In the FIR, there is no mention of any of the pending proceedings. Held that: - the present FIR does not pertain to a purely civil transaction. The false representation and inducement is very clear from the email sent to the Respondent No.2 for placing the purchase order for trial. Though it was clearly mentioned in the email that the Petitioner No.1 was the Managing Director of M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd., the Petitioner No.1 had already resigned from the Directorship of the said company. Placing the first purchase order on the trial basis was clearly a ploy to induce the Respondent No.2's firm to enter into bigger transaction. The subsequent conduct of the Petitioners shows that they had no intention of making the full payment. Thus, the inducement is apparent right from the inception of the business relationship between the parties. The email contained false information and therefore, the offence of forgery with cheating is also made out. The subsequent conduct of surreptitiously changing the office and avoiding to meet the Respondent No.2, shows the dishonest intention on the part of the Petitioners. In any case, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out from the allegations in the FIR. Right from the inception, the Petitioners had induced the Respondent No.2 in parting with huge quantity of Chromo Paper. The Petitioners' conduct right from the beginning till their default in the payment and till executing the Consent Terms shows that they never intended to make the full payment. Looking at the allegations in the FIR, we are unable to hold that no cognizable offence is made out against the Petitioners. Petition dismissed.
|