{"id":76594,"date":"2026-09-10T08:51:20","date_gmt":"2026-09-10T08:51:20","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2026-09-10T08:51:20","modified_gmt":"2026-09-10T08:51:20","slug":"dishonest-intention-at-inception-prevents-contractual-indemnity-disputes-from-being-treated-solely-as-civil-claims-for-fir-quashing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=76594","title":{"rendered":"Dishonest intention at inception prevents contractual indemnity disputes from being treated solely as civil claims for FIR quashing."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Dishonest intention at inception prevents contractual indemnity disputes from being treated solely as civil claims for FIR quashing.<br \/>Case-Laws<br \/>GST<br \/>Contractual indemnity does not bar criminal prosecution where allegations disclose cognizable offences rather than a mere civil breach. Claims that an agent introduced non-existent suppliers, produced documents to establish their genuineness, and facilitated fabricated GST invoices and supporting records for wrongful input-tax-credit claims may indicate dishonest intent from the inception of the transactions. Such disputed allegations require determination in criminal proceedings and cannot be conclusively resolved through inherent-jurisdiction proceedings to quash an FIR. The criminal proceedings were permitted to continue without any determination on the merits.<br \/> TMI Updates &#8211; Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts <\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/highlights?id=103620\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dishonest intention at inception prevents contractual indemnity disputes from being treated solely as civil claims for FIR quashing.Case-LawsGSTContractual indemnity does not bar criminal prosecution where allegations disclose cognizable offences rathe&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"close","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=76594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=76594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=76594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=76594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}