Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition to Quash FIR in Air Ticket Cancellation Fraud, Upholds Criminal Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Blue Bird Leisure and Holidays Ltd. & Others, seeking to quash an FIR registered against them under Sections 406/120B of the IPC. The FIR pertained to allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust in the context of the cancellation of air tickets. The judgment, pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma on February 2, 2024, emphasized the prima facie criminal nature of the conduct of the petitioners.

The petition challenged an order dated 07.06.2013 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which directed the registration of an FIR based on a complaint by Spring Holiday Ltd., alleging fraudulent cancellation of air tickets by the petitioners after payment was received. The petitioners sought the quashing of the consequent FIR, arguing that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising from a contractual relationship.

Justice Amit Sharma, in his judgment, observed, “The aforesaid aspect, as highlighted hereinabove, shows that even as per the petitioners’ own case, as on 27.09.2012, they were not authorized to book any tickets by M/s Ezeego. The scope of the present jurisdiction is limited in nature and disputed facts which require minute scrutiny cannot be gone into, at this stage.” This observation was crucial in determining the criminal aspect of the case.

The court also noted that the petitioners had no authority to book tickets for the complainant and that the amount received was never refunded. The judge remarked, “There appears to be prima facie substance in the allegations made against the petitioners.”

Rejecting the contentions of the petitioners, the court upheld the FIR and the consequent chargesheet, directing an expedited trial. The court clarified that the observations made were solely for the purpose of adjudicating the present petition and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: 02nd February, 2024

Blue Bird Leisure And Holidays Ltd. & Ors.  VS Spring Holiday Ltd. & Anr.                                         

 

Latest Legal News