#discharge petition

The Kerala High Court has ruled that merely failing to deliver goods after receiving advance payment does not constitute criminal cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is evidence the accused harbored dishonest intent at the time of receiving the payment. This clarifies the boundary between civil contract disputes and criminal fraud, protecting business owners from misuse of criminal law in commercial disagreements.

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that general, sweeping allegations of cruelty under Section 498A IPC - without concrete details of acts, timing, or shared household residence - cannot form the basis for framing charges against a mother-in-law. This clarifies the threshold for initiating prosecution in dowry cases, protecting innocent family members from indiscriminate legal harassment based on vague complaints.

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that the recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 bearing phenolphthalein residue, coupled with a credible complainant’s allegation of demand for gratification, constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence to uphold rejection of discharge under Section 227 CrPC. This sets a clear precedent for ACB trap cases where forensic evidence and testimonial corroboration jointly satisfy the threshold for trial, denying accused the early exit of discharge.

Madras HC rules that a bank branch manager can be prosecuted for criminal conspiracy under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act for submitting forged pre-sanction inspection reports, even if loan sanction authority lies elsewhere. The court held that facilitating fraudulent disbursement through false documentation constitutes prima facie criminal liability, rejecting the manager’s discharge plea.

Madras High Court reiterates that trial courts cannot consider defence documents while deciding discharge petitions under CrPC Section 245. The ruling mandates evaluation of prosecution evidence alone, ensuring procedural fairness in criminal trials and directing trial completion within six months.

Madras High Court holds that delay beyond 60 days in filing final report under SC/ST Act does not invalidate cognizance; statutory time limit is directory, not mandatory.

Kerala High Court holds that extra-judicial confessions under Customs Act and approvers' statements require independent corroboration to justify framing of charges under IPC and PC Act.