ISSAC JOHN Vs. M CHANDRASEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In continuation of the docket order dated 04.04.2019, which reads as follows:

(2.) Heard further arguments of both sides i.e. the counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant in C.F.R.No.1249/2018, order of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy, in the private complaint case maintained against the respondents 1 & 2 as proposed accused and also the arguments of the proposed accused/respondents to the revision as contemplated by Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. of right of hearing to the limited extent i.e. as reproduced from the scope of law by the constitutional bench expression of the Apex Court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Others, 2012 10 SCC 517 and also heard the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 3rd respondent/State and perused the two expressions placed reliance by the counsel for respondents/prospective accused 1 & 2 viz., in Anand Kumar Mohatta & Another Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & Another,2018 CDJ 1126 (SC) in a quash petition under Section 482 taken cognizance on the police final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. when impugned for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406 and 420 IPC, the Apex Court ultimately found fault with the High Court and allowed the quash petition particularly with observation at para 24 of it is a transaction in relation to security deposit of Rs.One Crore alleged misappropriation is dispute purely a civil in nature by referring to the other expressions in this regard, including Saga Suri Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, 2006 6 SCC 736 among others and the other expression is in Nageshwar Prasad Singh Alias Sinha Vs.Narayan Singh & Another,1998 CDJ 891 (SC) which is also a quash petition against the cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 415 and 420 IPC in relation to contract for sale observed dispute is civil in nature arising out of pure breach of contract with no criminal intention.

(3.) There is no quarrel on the propositions which the Court is accepting. However, that is not the scope of the lis covered by the present revision.