9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 865 - SC - Indian LawsWhether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused? Whether the investigation by the Officer-in-Charge of Mahankali Police Station may now be confined to the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code?
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) should be quashed. 2. Whether the allegations constitute offences under Sections 406, 420, and 463 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of FIR The High Court quashed the FIR on the grounds that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case of cheating, criminal breach of trust, or forgery. The court opined that the FIR was filed to pre-empt the accused from filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should have considered whether the complaint petition, even if taken at face value, constituted an offence under Sections 420, 406, and 463 IPC. The Supreme Court held that the High Court prematurely quashed the FIR without allowing the investigation to proceed. Issue 2: Offences under Sections 406, 420, and 463 IPC - Section 406 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust): The Supreme Court found that a case under Section 406 IPC was made out. The cheques, being property, were entrusted to the respondents. If misappropriated or used for a purpose other than intended, it constitutes criminal breach of trust. - Section 420 IPC (Cheating): The court emphasized that fraudulent or dishonest inducement must be at the inception. Since the cheques were handed over between 2000-2004 and disputes arose in 2005, no prima facie case of cheating was established. The court cited B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee, noting that fraudulent intent at the time of making a promise or representation is crucial for establishing cheating. - Section 463 IPC (Forgery): The court found no case for forgery. Allegations in the complaint petition stated that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 conspired to commit the offence, but the counter affidavit alleged that employees of the respondent company filled the cheques. No conspiracy between respondents and their employees was averred. Issue 3: Applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not have presumed the maintainability of a criminal proceeding based solely on Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized that commercial expediencies might lead to the issuance of blank cheques, and the defence that cheques were not meant to discharge a lawful liability could be raised in proceedings under Section 138. Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court should exercise this power with caution, ensuring that it does not interfere with investigations unless the complaint is manifestly mala fide or an abuse of the process of the court. The court cited precedents, including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, outlining circumstances under which FIRs can be quashed. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, directing that the investigation by the Officer-in-Charge of Mahankali Police Station be confined to the charge under Section 406 IPC. The court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation and timely filing of the final report. If a chargesheet is filed and cognizance taken, both cases should be tried by the same court, with judgments delivered simultaneously. The appeal was allowed to the extent of permitting the investigation under Section 406 IPC to proceed.
|
