Criminal Defense & Quashing Criminal Proceeding In Case Of Fraud: Legal Advice
Hereinbelow, the best criminal defense is being apprised that would help the accused, who is maliciously charged with the offence of Cheating, to save his money, time and reputation. The criminal defense would also save the accused from agony of the court room and trial. The term fraud is not defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 but its implication is given under section 421-424 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. T
These sections are apprised hereinbelow:
Here the, grounds to obtain bail easily upon being falsely implicated under any of the provisions for cheating, thereof. Section 421 – 424 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 deals with Fraud. These sections are apprised hereinbelow:
Section 421: Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals, delivers or transfer any property without adequate consideration and with intention to deprive his creditors to levy legal debt from him, shall be penalised with imprisonment upto 2 years, or liable for fine, or with both.
Section 422: Any person who dishonestly or fraudulently prevent any demand or debt being due to himself, or to any other person as per laws, to evade payment of debt to other creditor, shall be penalized with imprisonment upto 2 years, or liable for fine, or with both.
Section 423: Any person who dishonestly or fraudulently signs or executes a deed of transfer or becomes party to any deed or instrument which purports to transfer or subject to any charge on any property, or any interest therein, and which contains any false statement regarding the consideration for such charge or transfer, or relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it is really intended to operate, shall be penalized with imprisonment upto 2 years, or liable for fine, or with both.
Section 424: Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals any property that belongs to him or any other person or such person assist any other person, shall be penalised with imprisonment upto 2 years, or liable for fine, or with both.
Quashing Criminal Proceeding in false case of Fraud
The Hon’ble High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is empowered to quash First Information Report (F. I. R.) to give effect to any order under Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.), 1973 or to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure end of justice. Expressions such as “abuse of power of law” or “to secure end of justice” used under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not give unlimited jurisdiction to the Hon’ble High Courts.
In the case of Mahendra Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand [Cr. M. P. No. 206/ 2010], a 1.8 acre of land was recorded in record of right as Gairmajurwa Malik. Between 1970-71, two rent receipts were issued in the name of Samu Sao. After death of Samu Sao, his son Chandan Sao inherited the aforesaid land and got his name mutated against the property. Thereafter, Chandan Sao sold the aforesaid land separately in two parts i.e., 0.49 acre and 0.59 acre of land to Mahavir Kashi who was then Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society. Mahavir Kashi futher sold it to ten. The Petitioner, who was then Sub-Divisional Officer of that area, could have stopped such illegal mutation but he didn’t. Therefore, F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner under section 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), 1860 for being accomplice in such illegal mutation. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand after going through facts and reports of the present case, observed that ingredients required to constitute offence of Fraud under sections 423 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), 1860 are absent. As, no allegation for fraudulent or dishonest intention is made against the petitioner. Moreover, no allegation of concealment of the aforesaid land is made against the petitioner. The petitioner was also acquitted under the Departmental Enquiry.
In the case of Arvind Navinchandra Mafatlal v. State of Maharashtra [Cri. A. No. 3880/ 2009], the present case has a chequered history. Respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint about the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 423 read with Section 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 against the present applicants and 14 other accused. In brief, the argument of the complainants is that the Complainant No. 1 was owner of the brand named as “WEEDOFF” and that although under the agreement between the Complainant No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 1 could not have manufactured the said product but had to take the same from the Complainant. Accused No. 1 was manufacturing the said product themselves or getting it manufactured from 3rd party and marketing the same with a deceptive name “WEEDALL” without the assent of the complainants and hence committed the offences punishable under the sections thereof. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court upon finding no prima facie essential ingredients to constitute offences under aforesaid sections, quashed all criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The High Court of Bombay also held that the complaint against any of the accused is not sustainable in law and since the Hon’ble Court is of the considered view that the complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, the Hon’ble Court find that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Chaturvedi And Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani & Anr. [Cri. A. No. 811/ 1998] it will be futile to continue the criminal proceedings against the other accused persons merely because they did not approach this Court. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay of the considered view that in the interest of justice it is necessary to quash the criminal proceedings against all the accused.
After perusal of aforementioned criminal defense i.e., quashing criminal proceeding, and related aforementioned cases, readers could acknowledge the view that said criminal defense is the best criminal defense.
Authored By: Adv. Anant Sharma & Satwik Sharma