Breach of Contract Claims Regarding Property Sale Agreements
A man named Jaroen and his wife, Jit, were traveling in Mae Sai district when Jaroen attacked Jaroen, using a weapon to inflict injuries. Jaroen sustained injuries and required one month of treatment. Witnesses, Jit and Jan, observed the incident. After the event, Jaroen fled, and Jit was informed that Jaroen was attempting to cross into Myanmar. Police officer R.T. R.T. Ritjira pursued and apprehended Jaroen, and charges were formally filed against him. Jaroen admitted guilt. R.T. Ritjira, without a warrant or court order, arrested Jaroen based on sufficient evidence of criminal activity and a flight risk to Myanmar. According to Article 66(2) of the Criminal Code, this was permissible. However, due to the urgency of the situation, R.T. Ritjira had the authority to arrest Jaroen under Article 78(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. R.T. Ritjira was obligated to inform Jaroen of the charges and his rights, as stipulated in Article 83 of the Criminal Code. He failed to do so, rendering Jaroen s confession inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore, R.T. Ritjira did not allow Jaroen to be interviewed by an attorney or a trusted confidant, as permitted by Article 134/4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the arrest and investigation were deemed unlawful, but the investigation itself was not entirely invalidated. The statements made during the arrest and investigation could be considered as evidence. The prosecutor charged Mr. Ek with theft of a gold necklace belonging to Mr. To. Police officer R.T. R.T. Jurawit filed charges against Jaroen, failing to inform him of his rights to an attorney or a trusted representative. Jaroen confessed. Witnesses, including Jaroen, Jit, and Jan, were interviewed, along with the treating physician and the weapon examiner. The investigation concluded that Jaroen confessed to the crime. Mr. To was considered a victim under the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the right to file a criminal lawsuit under Article 2(2) and Article 28(2) of the Criminal Code. However, Mr. To falsely accused Mr. Ek, providing insufficient evidence for a conviction, and the court dismissed Mr. Ek s case. Therefore, Mr. To s claim to prosecute Mr. Ek was unfounded.