Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against G. Prasad Raghavan, accused of cheating and conspiracy in a Puducherry land fraud case.

Held - There was no evidence of inducement or involvement by Raghavan, as he was a minor when the alleged fraud occurred and later purchased the property legitimately. This decision clarifies the requirement of “active involvement” for criminal liability in property transactions.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Mere familial association or subsequent purchase does not constitute criminal intent.

✅ Courts must avoid “roving inquiries” absent direct evidence against the accused.

Statutes:

✅ IPC: Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 294(b), 506, 34

✅ CrPC: Section 239

#SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #PropertyLaw #IPC