Anonymous
Asked August 02, 2016

Charge Sheet IPC 420

  • 1 Answer
  • 266 Views

Main content of charge sheet A1 is me and A2 is real estate broker ####################### Investigation revealed as below LW1 is residing at XXXXX A1 is purchaser and A2 is mediator and they know both each other LW1 purchased plot no. 45 from Venu and planted kaddies around the land area Later due to financial conditions she wanted to dispose off the land At that time A2 came into contact with her through whom L1 sold out the plot to A1 A1 is due of 1Lakh to her, she has kept all the original documents with A2 till she get the money Meantime a quarrel took place between LW-1 and A2 and she demanded her plot back Taking the situation to their advantage, A1 and A2 threatened and took 7 Lakhs from her and also took one plain cheque of Ramesh who is her relative and above said document is cancelled since then A1 and A2 colluded each other and presented the above check for 15 lakhs without the knowledge of her and Ramesh due to which cheque was bounced taking the advantage of same cheque bounce case was filed in court A1 and A2 has been treating her to give 15 lakhs to withdraw the case and return the documents While things stood thus on 27th March 2015 Lw1 went to A2 to collect the documents but he was not There, she asked his wife to give the documents but she did not do so hence she return from there keeping in this mind on 29th March A1 and A2 criminally trespassed into the house of Lw1 and abused Lw1 and Lw2 with filty language and beat Lw2 with hands and threatened with dire consequences while Leave the place thus A1 and A2 committed the offences punishable u/s IPC 420, 448, 323, 506 Clarification from my side I am the A1 and real estate agent is A2 I am not in country on 29th March --- have passport copy proof I know A2 as real estate person only last two years I never spoken to him, I dialed him after I came to know about this issue Also in cancellation deed I have clearly mentioned it was cancelled due to misunderstood and legal issues and even in earlier charge sheet it is mentioned the same (earlier charge sheet for GPA fraud where compliant is accused and I am the LW ) Previous case details are not mentioned by them somehow managed the police I got ACB in session court in first go itself and judge clearly mentioned case is completely civil in nature For cheque bounce I don’t know who Ramesh is and I am not even the benefier There is no signed document between us for their claim please advice this is fit case for quash in high court, also whether 420 is applicable here ?

Answer 1

Default avatar
Anina D'Cunha

A signed document is not relevant for the claim. It is necessary to mention the reasons for the cancellation deed.

One is liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) only if the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque and if the payee of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. Furthermore, the drawer of such cheque should fail to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.

Also, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does apply in this case. It states that whoever cheats and dishonestly induces the person de­ceived to deliver any property to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Both the complaints can be filed simultaneously. [1]

In the prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act , the mens rea i.e. fraudulent or dishonest intention of the drawer of the cheque, at the time of issuance of cheque is not required to be proved. However, in the case under IPC involved herein, the issue of mens rea may be relevant. The burden of proof will lie on the payee.

One is also liable for house-trespass under Section 448 of IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment of for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 323 of the IPC also applies here, which prescribes the same punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Under Section 506 of the IPC, a punishment for criminal intimidation is prescribed—which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, the punishment is imprisonment which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

[1] Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in  Sangeetaben   Mahindrabhai   Patel   v.   State   of   Gujarat   &   Anr.,  Criminal Appeal No. 645/2012

                                                                                                       

Agree Comment 0 Agrees about 1 year ago

Please Login or Register to Submit Answer

Will ads
Don't have a Will ?

Create your free will online in less than 10 minutes.

Do you have a Will?
Why not create one now for free in under 10 minutes!

Get started now