FIR is only a report recorded by the Police of a cognizable offence. Whether the charges stick or not is argued by parties at the time of framing of charges. You have stated facts regarding abusive threats which come under section 506. Facts constituting offence under other sections of IPC are not there.
Even after the views of Mr Thukral , the facts of the case are against A., and FIR is maintanable.
After execution of conditional sale deed what A has done to get it completed. There has to be documentry evidence that A called upon B to complete the transection.
Otherwise it will be presumed that A is intentionally avoiding to complete the transection.
Even in response to the FIR whether A is ready to complete the transection with B , if not it shows guilt on the part of A.
please give the original complaint or else go through the complaint once,whether the ingredients of the offences are made out in the complaint.when the complaint consiist of the ingredients as mentioned in IPC,the complaint is maintainable.
the agreement to pay was within two years, the term has now expired. B failed on his part to comply with the agreement so A is now not bound to the agreement. If false police case has been lodged, the polic will investigate and come out with the true facts. In the meantime A should go in for Anticipatory bail. FIR is maintainable if it constitutes any offence.
Well with due respect to the other opinions , A has to show records what he / she has done to persue to complete the deal. Was B reminded and he did not respond.
Otherwise A can not escape under the timelimit excuse. It is clearly cheating and even if the police do not persue the case private case will stand and not only process will be issued againsty A but also he can be prosecuted apart from for specific performance by compansation and damages also.
It is my humble submission to my other advocate freinds while evaluating any opinion is that truth and facts are always defferent. Facts are door to truth and we have to find the truth for justice.
In this case why A does not want to complete the transection. In absence of clear and solid evidence of guilt on the part of B , the A has to face criminal and civil prosecution.
sir,
in a criminal case the accused will not say a word and the prosecution has to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore B ( prosecution) will have to prove that he had taken steps for payment of rest amount but A evaded it.
as far as my views are concerned A has to file a civil suit against B for specific performance of the contract B is bound to pay the amount to A.This will show that A is still ready to perform the contract you can go for anticipatery bail or section 482 of crpc before the high court before the cognizance taken of the case................................................
Our Network Sites
H. S. Thukral
