2020 (11) TMI 499 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - prosecution case is that the accused has misused the blank cheque leaf and papers signed by the complainant which is given to the 1 st accused as security and hence cheated the de facto complainant - HELD THAT - This is not a fit case in which I can quash the entire proceedings in Annexure-2 final report. Of course there may be legal contentions to the petitioners regarding the maintainablity of the prosecution. But when the petitioners themselves admit that this is the counter blast to a prosecution initiated by them against the de facto complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act this Court can not quash one proceedings invoking the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The case of the de facto complainant in this case is his defence in Annexure-3 proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Quashing of final report alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC; Connection between the present case and a pending case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; Invocation of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

In this judgment, the High Court of Kerala addressed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking to quash a final report alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution contended that the accused had misused a blank cheque leaf and papers signed by the complainant, leading to accusations of cheating. The court heard arguments from the petitioners' counsel and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioners claimed that the present case was a retaliatory action against a prosecution initiated by the first petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was pending. They argued that no offence was prima facie made out in the final report and requested the court to utilize the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash it. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor highlighted the connection between the two cases and emphasized that both cases should be decided by the same court after evidence is presented. The court, after considering both sides, concluded that it was not appropriate to quash the proceedings based on the petitioners' admission that this case was a response to the Section 138 proceedings. The court noted that both cases were interconnected and should be decided separately. The petitioners were granted the liberty to raise all contentions in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case before the trial court, and as a result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed.