Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 630 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - There have been animosity between the petitioners and the respondent. In such circumstances, mala fides of the respondent has to be looked into. It is apparent that as a counter blast for the proceedings initiated by the petitioners this case has been initiated by the respondent. Hence, necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust have not been made out, on the other hand attendant circumstances indicate that the complaint has been made with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance in view to spite for the 138 cases initiated by the petitioners against the respondent. The proceedings were initiated as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Quashing of criminal case under Sections 406, 467, and 471 IPC based on allegations of breach of trust, forgery, and cheating. Analysis: The petitioners sought to quash a criminal case (C.C.No.137 of 2010) pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court-VI, Coimbatore, alleging offences under Sections 406, 467, and 471 IPC. The respondent had recommended third parties to the father of the 1st petitioner for loans, providing blank cheques and pronotes as security. Disputes arose when the petitioners allegedly misused the cheques, leading to legal actions including a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners argued that no criminal breach of trust or forgery occurred as the respondent had entrusted the cheques to the 1st petitioner's father, and the respondent admitted signing the cheques. They contended that the respondent filed the complaint as a countermeasure to the petitioners' legal actions under Section 138. The respondent countered, alleging that the petitioners misused the cheques and engaged in foul play, justifying the criminal complaint. The respondent claimed to have informed the late father of the 1st petitioner about the missing cheques and stopped their payment in 2003. The respondent highlighted a series of notices and communications regarding the cheques, indicating a history of disputes and attempts to resolve the matter. The respondent argued that the petitioners' threats and actions necessitated the criminal complaint. The High Court analyzed the contentions and evidence presented by both parties. It noted discrepancies in the respondent's claims regarding the cheques' status and the lack of conclusive proof of discharge of loan amounts. The Court observed that the lower court's decision to take cognizance of the complaint appeared flawed, lacking proper scrutiny of documents and relying on unsubstantiated claims. The Court emphasized the absence of elements constituting forgery or cheating, especially given the ongoing legal proceedings under Section 138. Ultimately, the Court found that the criminal complaint seemed retaliatory, initiated in response to the petitioners' legal actions. Citing precedents and legal principles, the Court determined that the case lacked merit and constituted an abuse of legal process. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the criminal case (C.C.No.137 of 2010) before the Judicial Magistrate Court-VI, Coimbatore, based on the absence of essential elements for offenses under Sections 406, 467, and 471 IPC.
|