Under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, where the real owner's civil suit to recover property held benami is barred by Section 4, can he still prosecute the person in whose name the property is held on the self-same cause of action?

No. Sections 4(1) and 4(2) prohibit any suit, claim or action to enforce a right in property held benami by a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. Since the complainant is prohibited from suing the accused for a civil wrong in relation to these benami transactions, allowing criminal prosecution of the accused in relation to the self-same cause of action would be impermissible in law.

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 — s.2(a) — s.4 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — s.406 — s.294(b) — s.506(ii) — Benami transaction — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Abuse of process of law — Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 — s.4 — Property held benami — civil remedy barred, criminal prosecution impermissible — Held: Section 4 of the Benami Act bars the real owner from suing to enforce any right in property held benami. As a corollary, criminal prosecution on the self-same cause of action is impermissible in law. (¶35, 36) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — s.406 — Cheating — fraudulent intention at inception of the transaction — Held further: Cheating is not made out unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Where plots and part profits were passed on and only quantification of the share is disputed, the dispute is purely civil. (¶38, 42) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.294(b) — s.506(ii) — Obscene acts — profane language and bald allegation insufficient — Held further: Section 294(b) applies only to an obscene song, ballad or words uttered in or near a public place, not to an allegation of abuse by profane language. A bald allegation of intimidation, unsupported by material, will not sustain Section 506(ii). (¶43, 44) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — Civil dispute given colour of criminal prosecution — abuse of process — Held further: A purely civil dispute given the colour of criminal prosecution by misusing the tool of criminal law tantamounts to sheer abuse of the process of law. Impugned order and the proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet quashed; appeal allowed. (¶42, 46)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of C. Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj and Others v. The Superintendent of Police and Others — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India