Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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