2021 (2) TMI 1238 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - private Compliant filed by the respondent - an abuse of the process of the court or not - ingredients of the offences mentioned in the complaint are attracted warranting cognizance of the offences against the petitioner or not - HELD THAT - The respondent did not take any action either for giving a police complaint or for filing a private complaint, soon after, the receipt of notice of demand issued by the petitioner in respect of those two disputed cheques. Moreover, he has also suffered an award in the arbitration proceedings in respect of these two disputed cheques. On 14.08.2014, wherein, the respondent remained exparte inspite of several opportunities given to the respondent. But, he did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. So, even after that, he did not take any action for filing complaint or information to the police. The present prosecution was initiated, only in the year of 2015. The reason for the long delay is also not clearly stated by the respondent in the complaint. In respect of disputed cheques, there is a clear admission on the part of the respondent to the effect that as per the agreement between the parties, it was the practise of issuing blank cheques, whenever, goods are delivered on credit basis. When cash is paid towards the delivery of the goods, it will be accounted. Along with the complaint, account statement issued by the petitioner is also filed. Perusal of the accounts statement shows that whenever, there was supply of goods on credit basis, the respondent used to send cheque, which according to him, signed blank cheque and whenever, amount is paid, it was given credit. As per the statement of accounts, it is seen that as on 30.09.2011, the closing balance is ₹ 7,12,663/- - According to the respondent, the two cheques were already given discharge and accounted. But, later, they have been forged and presented for encashment. So, according to him, forgery and other offences are clearly made out. Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the private complaint filed by the respondent is an abuse of the court process or if the offenses alleged warrant cognizance.
2. Whether the material presented by the accused in the complaint is sufficient to reject the charges.
3. Whether the delay in filing the complaint affects the validity of the case.
4. Whether the respondent's allegations of fraud and forgery are substantiated.
5. Whether the case should be quashed or a joint trial ordered based on the allegations.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to quash proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2017, arguing that the cheques issued by the respondent were not disputed, and the liability was legally enforceable. The respondent contended that the petitioner misused the cheques after a dispute arose, committing offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court considered whether the private complaint was an abuse of process or if the alleged offenses warranted cognizance.

2. The court analyzed the material presented by both parties, noting the admission by the respondent regarding the issuance of blank signed cheques as per their agreement. The respondent claimed the petitioner misused the cheques after a dispute, leading to false complaints. The petitioner argued that the admitted facts did not constitute offenses, relying on judgments related to counter complaints delaying proceedings.

3. The petitioner raised concerns about the delay in filing the complaint, citing judgments emphasizing the abuse of court processes through belated complaints. The respondent's delay in taking action after receiving notices and an arbitration award was highlighted, questioning the validity of the prosecution initiated in 2015.

4. The respondent alleged fraud by the petitioner in withholding relevant documents and forging cheques. The court examined the respondent's contentions, including the petitioner's alleged fraud upon the court and the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C regarding forgery complaints.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, including the respondent's admission in the reply notice and the outstanding settlement amount, the court found the criminal prosecution to be an abuse of court process. Citing precedents, the court quashed the complaint, concluding that it was a clear abuse of the court process, leading to the allowance of the Criminal Original Petition and closure of the connected miscellaneous petition.