2019 (7) TMI 1455 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of application - second application for the same relief, which had already been dismissed - Dishonor of Cheque - HELD THAT - The Company, of which the appellant was a Director, is a party respondent in the complaint. The interests of the complainant are therefore adequately protected. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to hold that the second application for quashing of the complaint was not maintainable merely because of the dismissal of the earlier application. Appeal allowed - the proceedings against the appellant alone are quashed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of a second application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. after the dismissal of an earlier application for the same relief.
2. Allegations of issuance of dishonored cheques against the appellant as Director of a company.
3. Consideration of resignation of the appellant prior to the issuance of cheques and its effect on the case.
4. Application of legal precedents regarding the maintainability of successive applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
5. Protection of interests of complainant and company in the case.

Issue 1: Maintainability of a Second Application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.:
The appellant filed a fresh application under Section 482 after the dismissal of an earlier application for the same relief. The High Court initially dismissed the fresh application, citing the earlier dismissal as a bar to maintainability. However, the Supreme Court held that the second application was maintainable due to changed circumstances and new evidence, especially the Form 32 certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies supporting the appellant's resignation prior to the issuance of cheques.

Issue 2: Allegations of Issuance of Dishonored Cheques:
The complaint alleged that the appellant, as Director of a company, issued dishonored cheques on specific dates. The appellant had previously denied liability based on his resignation before the cheque issuance, which was not mentioned in the complaint. The High Court had dismissed the earlier application solely based on the cheques being issued under the appellant's signature, without considering the resignation and its implications.

Issue 3: Consideration of Resignation and its Effect:
The appellant's defense of resignation before the cheque issuance was supported by Form 32 certificate, which was not considered in the earlier application. The Supreme Court emphasized that the resignation fact was undisputed, and the subsequent application was not a mere repetition but based on new evidence. The Court highlighted the importance of considering uncontroversial documents like resignation proofs to prevent injustice and abuse of legal process.

Issue 4: Application of Legal Precedents:
The Court referred to legal precedents like Mohan Singh case, emphasizing that successive applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C. were maintainable under changed circumstances. The Court also cited the Harshendra Kumar case, stressing the significance of considering uncontroverted documents like resignation proofs in criminal cases to prevent injustice and abuse of legal process.

Issue 5: Protection of Interests of Complainant and Company:
The Court noted that the interests of the complainant were adequately protected as the company, of which the appellant was a Director, was also a party respondent in the complaint. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the second application for quashing the complaint was maintainable despite the dismissal of the earlier application, and subsequently quashed the proceedings against the appellant alone.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed the proceedings against the appellant, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant evidence and circumstances in legal proceedings to ensure justice and prevent abuse of legal process.