Skip to main content

legal opinion on cheating in making payment for balance amount

                                 SHORT NOTE ON LEGAL OPINION

FACTS:

Manish Kumar is a factory owner at Delhi & supplied goods worth Rs 10 lakh to Surjeet Sinha at Chandigarh. Surjeet paid only Rs 2.60 lakhs & did not make the payment of the balance amount. His intention was bad from the beginning. He kept on buying time on one pretext or the other. Manish Kumar later come to know that he also cheated similarly to other factory owner. Manish filed a written complaint to the police at Delhi but police did not register the FIR. 

ISSUE:

Whether police are correct for not registering Manish FIR or police are avoiding their duty to register FIR . 

BACKGROUND:

In the case of Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. & others (2008) Supreme Court in the 5 Judge Bench remark that the number of F.I.R. not registered is approximately equivalent to the number of F.I.R. actually registered. In a study conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Opinion, New Delhi regarding “Image of the police in India” observed that over 50% of the respondent mention non-registration of complaints as a common practice in Police Station.

LEGAL ASPECT:

Every information related to the commission of cognizable offence given to the  officer in charge of a police station shall be registered in writing enter in a book or in a form as the state government may prescribed under section 154 (1) code of criminal procedure. In the case of cognizable offences police can take immediate action as these offences are serious in nature. Police can arrest accused without warrant or court’s permission as per section 2 (c) in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The use of word “shall” in section 154 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure intend that it is mandatory to register an F.I.R. if the information given to the police discloses the commission of cognizable offence.  Apart from Indian Penal code, there are some other laws where the provision of cognizable offence has been mentioned such as prevention of corruption act, UAPA, … in these laws cognizability of an offence shall be determined by the punishment for the offence. If the liability of an offence is punishable with the imprisonment of minimum 3 years, it is considered as cognizable offence. In relation to the registration of an F.I.R. Ministry of Home Affair issued guidelines in 2013 for compulsory registration of F.I.R. under section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure when the information makes out a cognizable offences.  

Sometimes police are reluctant to register F.I.R. they start making excuses of preliminary enquiry and keep on beating around  the bush. As far as Preliminary enquiry is concerned under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedure for the investigation of the offence shall be started after the registration of F.I.R. and no credibility or reasonability of the said information set any precedent condition for the registration of the case.  

As per the Law commission of India report 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 considered that compulsory registration of F.I.R. is mandatory and no delay or deny shall be excused. There are case where police officer shows state guidelines for avoiding their duty and violation the right of the citizen, on that issued I would like to mention about Article 254 (1) of the constitution of India, where law made by parliament prevails over the law made by State government. 

Every person who is aware of the commission or intention of any other person to commit any offence which punishable under any section of Indian Penal Code in the absence of any excuse should inform the nearest magistrate or police officer of such commission or intention. 

JUDGEMENTS:

In the case of State of Haryana & others V. Bhajan Lal & others (1992) Supreme Court held that any information disclosing a cognizable offence and satisfying the conditions of section 154 (1) of the code of Criminal Procedure laid before am officer in charge of a police station shall be duty bound to register a case based on such information without any excuse. In the case of Ramesh Kumari V. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & others (2006) Supreme Court held that reasonableness or Credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. In the case of State of Maharashtra & others V. Shiv Das Singh Chavan & others (2011) Supreme Court held that the information disclosing a cognizable offence shall be recorded by the police in accordance with the provision prescribed under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Lalita Kumari V. State of U.P. & others (2013) 5 Judge bench of Supreme Court held that registration of F.I.R. is mandatory if the information disclosing cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering F.I.R. in the case of information disclosing cognizable offence. Action must be taken against the erring officer who do not register the F.I.R. if the information received by him disclosing a cognizable offence. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity of an enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted only ascertained whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

OPINION:

In my opinion, cheating is a cognizable & non-bailable offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Manish Kumar file F.I.R. under section 154 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence of Cheating against Surjeet Sinha. Fact of the case indicate Surjeet’s mala fide intention to deceive Manish kumar by purchasing goods without paying money. Surjeet past records shows that he used to deceive people multiple times during his past business projects. 

I request the Court to take note of those erring police officer who refuse to register Manish Kumar F.I.R. and take strict action against them. on that note I would like to advice Manish to approach his nearest police station to file his case. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more