9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 160 - HC - Indian LawsOffence under Negotiable instruments Act - Reason available for the complainant to have escaped the liability - FIR was lodged by the complainant on 01.03.2016 as a counter-blast - Held that - It is apparent that the cheques were submitted in 2015 and as soon as the aforesaid legal notice dated 09.12.2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon the complainant on 15.12.2015 and a letter was sent by the complainant on 21.12.2015, as a counterblast, the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant on 01.03.2016 levelling allegations against the petitioners, which clearly are nothing but an effort of the complainant to escape the liability arising out of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption clause of the Negotiable Instruments Act is absolute and has been discussed in the precedent law cited above, and thus, allowing the complainant to carry on with such malicious criminal proceedings in response to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Learned Public Prosecutor has shown the case diary, and the case diary does not reflect any answer to the counterblast criminal proceedings, as it is reflected by the documents that the cheques were actually issued by the complainant, and even if some kind of dispute regarding the multiple Firms, or the words Private Limited is there, the same can be a good defence for the complainant at the time of contesting the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the same cannot be a ground for criminal prosecution against the petitioners. Present misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.42 dated 01.03.2016 registered at Police Station, Bichhwal, District Bikaner is quashed and set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the FIR under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC. 2. Allegations of forgery related to the addition of "Private Limited." 3. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. 4. Counterblast nature of the FIR in response to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the FIR under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC: The petitioners challenged the FIR No.42 dated 01.03.2016, arguing it was filed as a counterblast to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners highlighted that the complainant had denied the outstanding amount of the cheques through a letter dated 21.12.2015, and subsequently, cases under Section 138 were filed on 25.01.2016. The FIR was lodged on 01.03.2016, which the petitioners argued was retaliatory. 2. Allegations of Forgery Related to the Addition of "Private Limited": The respondent claimed that the petitioners had illegally altered the cheque by adding "Private Limited" to the name "Karan Agri Genetics," thus creating a forged document. This was a key point of contention, as the alteration was alleged to be fraudulent. 3. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Quash the FIR: The petitioners relied on several precedents to argue that the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in D.P. Gulati, emphasizing the steps required to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment. The court must assess whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and of impeccable quality, and whether it rules out the assertions in the charges. The petitioners also referenced the case of Hanuman Vs. The State of Rajasthan, where the FIR was quashed as it was found to be a counterblast to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Counterblast Nature of the FIR in Response to Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The court noted that the FIR appeared to be a retaliatory measure by the complainant to escape liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption clause of the Act is absolute, and allowing the complainant to pursue malicious criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The court observed that the cheques were issued by the complainant, and any disputes regarding the firm's name could be addressed during the proceedings under Section 138. Conclusion: The court concluded that the FIR was a counterblast to the Section 138 proceedings and constituted an abuse of the process of law. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was invoked to quash the FIR, as it was found to be maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The court quashed FIR No.42 dated 01.03.2016 and set aside the proceedings, thereby allowing the petition and disposing of the stay application.
|
