2012 (1) TMI 421 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the FIR No. 21/2005 should be quashed.
2. Allegations of mala fide intent by the complainant.
3. Applicability of double jeopardy.
4. Nature of the dispute being civil or criminal.

Summary:

1. Quashing of FIR No. 21/2005:
The petitions filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash FIR No. 21/2005 registered u/s 120B/420/467/468/471/477A IPC. The FIR was based on allegations that the petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy, used forged documents to claim themselves as Directors of the Company, and committed falsification of accounts. The court observed that a plain reading of the FIR makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners for cheating, forgery, using forged documents, and falsification of accounts. The court referred to the principles laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 and concluded that the FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence.

2. Allegations of Mala Fide Intent:
The petitioners alleged that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent by the complainant, Ms. Mausumi Bhattacharjee. However, the court noted that allegations of mala fides are easy to make but difficult to establish prima facie. The court held that the allegations against the complainant essentially constitute the petitioners' defense, which needs to be proved during the trial. The court found no merit in this contention and dismissed it.

3. Applicability of Double Jeopardy:
The petitioners contended that the FIR is liable to be quashed due to double jeopardy, citing T.T. Anthony Vs. State 2001 (2) JCC 282: AIR 2001 SC 2637. The court compared the FIRs registered in New Delhi and Dehradun and found that they disclose different offences. The court held that the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C. is not applicable as there is no acquittal or conviction in respect of the case registered at Dehradun, and the offences in the two FIRs are distinct and separate.

4. Nature of the Dispute:
The petitioners argued that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and has been converted into a criminal dispute. The court referred to the judgments in M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2780 and Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Appeal (Crl.) 1392 of 2007. The court held that the dispute between the parties is not purely civil and involves allegations of forgery and cheating, which warrant criminal proceedings. The court dismissed the contention that the FIR should be quashed on this ground.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the FIR discloses a prima facie case for cognizable offences, and the contentions of mala fide intent, double jeopardy, and the dispute being civil in nature were without merit. The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on the petitioners for abusing the process of law.