Tag Archives: intention

Breach of Contract vis a vis Offence of Cheating

In Rashmi Jain v. State of U.P., 2014 (1) SCALE 415, the court said that mere failure of a person to keep up promise subsequently, a culpable intention right at the beginning, i.e., when he made the promises cannot be presumed. A distinction has to be kept in mind between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement. The subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent, dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.
In Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2015 CRLJ 2455 the court held that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In other words, for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. Suneel Galgotia v. State of U.P., 2016 (92) ACC 40.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Criminal Law, Offence of Cheating

Relationship in the nature of marriage vis-à-vis marital relationship

Relationship of marriage continues, notwithstanding the fact that there are differences of opinions, marital unrest etc., even if they are not sharing a shared household, being based on law. But live-in relationship is purely an arrangement between the parties unlike, a legal marriage. Once a party to a live-in relationship determines that he/she does not wish to live in such a relationship, that relationship comes to an end. Further, in a relationship in the nature of marriage, the party asserting the existence of the relationship, at any stage or at any point of time, must positively prove the existence of the identifying characteristics of that relationship.
Many a times, it is the common intention of the parties to that relationship as to what their relationship is to be, and to involve and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, that primarily governs that relationship. Intention may be expressed or implied and what is relevant is their intention as to matters that are characteristic of a marriage. Having children is a strong circumstance to indicate a relationship in the nature of marriage. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, 2014 (84) ACC 290.

Leave a comment

Filed under Criminal Law, Matrimonial Relationship

Instigation to Commit Suicide

In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State , (2009) 16 SCC 605 the Apex Court while dealing with the term “instigation” held:
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of ‘instigation’ though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation’ must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an ‘instigation’ may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
Thus to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encoureg the doing of an act by the other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘goad’ is a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction, to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.”
The court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 while dealing with a similar situation observed that what constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances, that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
It is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances which had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal

Leave a comment

Filed under Abetment, Criminal Law