Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Section 4—Bar of section—Property deals were benami transactions—In view of clear bar contained in Section 4 of the Benami Act, the complainant could not have sued the accused appellants for the same set of facts and allegations which are made foundation of criminal proceedings—Since, if such allegations do not constitute an actionable civil wrong, in such circumstances, allowing the prosecution of accused appellants for the very same set of facts, would tantamount to abuse of the process of law.
[Paras 47]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 420 read with Section 120B, Section 294(b), 506(ii) read with Section 114—Cheating in real estate business—Quashing of proceedings declined by High Court—Appeal—Absence of allegation to hold that intention of accused appellants was to defraud the complainant right from the inception of transactions—Necessary ingredients of offences punishable under Section 406 and Section 420 IPC are not made out against accused appellants from admitted allegations set out in the complaint and charge sheet—It cannot be doubted that a dispute which is purely civil in nature has been given a colour of criminal prosecution alleging fraud and criminal breach of trust by misusing tool of criminal law—Complainant alleged that accused abused him by using profane language—Section 294(b) IPC would clearly not apply to such an act—Apart from a bald allegation made by complainant that first accused abused him and intimidated him, there is no material which can show that accused indulged in criminal intimidation of complainant so as to justify invocation of offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of IPC—Complainant has tried to misuse the tool of criminal law by filing the patently frivolous FIR, wherein allegation is levelled regarding so-called incident of criminal intimidation—Criminal prosecution instituted against accused appellants in pursuance of the totally frivolous FIR tantamounts to sheer abuse of the process of law—Impugned order passed by High Court is quashed—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 38 to 46]