2021 (6) TMI 8 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - Offences punishable under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC - sub-standard black pepper supplied - dishonest intent - specific allegation is made in the complaint that with the dishonest intention even though the materials are received, a false legal notice was issued stating that black pepper which was supplied is of sub standard and the same clearly discloses the dishonest intention of the complainant - HELD THAT - The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT 2018 (1) TMI 1624 - SUPREME COURT has held that while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court should not venture to interfere in the domain of the investigation unless there is any prima facie case. It is also observed and summarized the principles in context of the FIR that High Court should not venture to collect the material evidence sitting as Appellate Court and only to look into the contents of the complaint and when the complaint discloses prima facie committing of cognizable offence, it should stay its hands in interfering with the domain of the investigation. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 brought to the notice of this Court the whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties and that respondent No. 2 had been to Delhi and this petitioner did not meet him and also not made any payment. The correspondence made between them clearly discloses taking of time for presentation of cheques and issuance of cheques and hence it is clear that it is a business transaction, but the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint where specific allegations are made against the petitioner that with dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction he made the assurance and cheated the complainant and the very complaint allegation discloses prima facie committing of the offence of Section 420 of IPC. When such being the factual aspects of the case, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that it is a criminal case registered against the petitioner invoking Section 420 of IPC. In the case on hand, though the cheque was bounced, no case is filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. The allegation is made against the petitioner that with dishonest intention, a transaction was entered into and at the inception of the transaction itself there was an intention to cheat the complainant. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only on abuse of process, a false proceedings is initiated against the petitioner cannot be accepted at this juncture. The matter requires to be investigated when the cognizable offence has been made out in the complaint. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash a private complaint for offences under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC and Crime No. 5/2020.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Allegations in the Private Complaint
The respondent filed a private complaint alleging non-payment for supplied black pepper, despite receiving material worth a significant amount. The complaint accused the petitioner of dishonesty by issuing a false legal notice regarding sub-standard material.

Issue 2: Defense Arguments
The petitioner's counsel argued that the transaction was on behalf of the Company, which was not implicated as an accused. It was contended that payments were made but suppressed in the complaint. The defense emphasized that this was a business transaction and not a criminal matter, urging for a civil suit instead.

Issue 3: Legal Precedents
The petitioner's counsel cited judgments emphasizing the importance of arraigning the Company in cases involving the Managing Director. However, the respondent's counsel highlighted the necessity of proving fraudulent intent at the beginning of the transaction for prosecution.

Issue 4: Prosecution's Contentions
The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner's failure to make promised payments indicated dishonesty and intention to cheat. They presented evidence of exchanged messages and dishonored cheques to support the allegations of fraudulent conduct.

Issue 5: Court's Analysis and Decision
The Court, considering the contents of the complaint and legal precedents, found prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense under Section 420 of IPC. The Court emphasized that the complaint disclosed dishonest intentions at the transaction's inception, warranting further investigation. The Court rejected the petition, allowing the petitioner to approach after the final report's filing.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, factual allegations, defense strategies, relevant legal precedents, and the Court's decision based on the prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense.