9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1295 - SC - Indian LawsCheques dishonoured on account of payment stopped by the drawer - offence under NI Act - Respondent No. 2 as a counter blast filed allegedly frivolous criminal complaint case No. 1446 of 2013 relating to offences punishable Under Sections 420 467 468 471 and 406 Indian Penal Code before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-4 Meerut against the Appellant and other directors of the Appellant s company - Held that - From bare perusal of Section 482 of the Code it is clear that the object of exercise of power Under the Section is to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. Offences punishable Under Sections 420 467 468 471 and 406 of Indian Penal Code In view of above position of law and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and after going through the criminal complaint filed against Respondent No. 2 and thereafter one filed by him against the Appellant we are of the view that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law on the part of Respondent No. 2. Therefore we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the same is allowed. The impugned proceedings of criminal complaint pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-4 Meerut between the parties are hereby quashed in respect of offences punishable Under Sections 420 467 468 471 and 406 Indian Penal Code.
Issues:
Appeal against order declining to quash criminal complaint proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 406 IPC - Alleged abuse of process of law by Respondent No. 2 - Invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Application of legal principles from relevant judgments. Analysis: The appeal challenged the High Court's order declining to quash criminal complaint proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the Appellant. The case involved a franchise agreement dispute between the Appellant's company and M/s. SVS Computers Ltd., where Respondent No. 2 was a director. The Appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Respondent No. 2, who retaliated with a separate complaint alleging various serious offenses against the Appellant and others. The Appellant contended that Respondent No. 2's actions were an abuse of process of law and filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the proceedings. The legal arguments presented by both parties revolved around whether the High Court erred in not considering the abuse of process of law claim by the Appellant. The Appellant argued that the initiation of criminal proceedings in Meerut was solely to pressurize him in the existing case, while Respondent No. 2 defended the High Court's decision, stating that objections to the charges could be raised during the trial court's framing of charges. The Court examined the provisions of Section 482 of the Code, emphasizing its purpose to prevent abuse of process of law and ensure justice. Referring to relevant legal precedents, the Court outlined the steps to determine the validity of a quashment plea under Section 482. The judgments in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and Rishipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh highlighted the need to prevent vexatious complaints and abuse of legal processes. In the present case, the Court found that Respondent No. 2's actions amounted to an abuse of process of law and quashed the criminal complaint proceedings against the Appellant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 406 IPC. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the criminal complaint proceedings against the Appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of preventing misuse of legal procedures and ensuring justice in cases involving alleged abuse of process of law.
|
