2021 (6) TMI 954 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - no averments in the sale agreement regarding the cheque - no notice given nor take any action to get back the cheque - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - The learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the petition after analysing the merits of the case. It is only the duty of the buyer to check the condition of the vehicle before he purchase the car. Admittedly, the vehicle is with the petitioner till now sale agreement for the car also filed. But, there is no averments in the sale agreement regarding the cheque as stated in the petition. The petitioner neither send any notice nor take any action to get back the cheque, before the 2nd respondent had initiated action against this petitioner - Only after getting notice in the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he gave the complaint to police. He can very well contest the case which is pending under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, with all the above averments in the petition. He cannot prefer a private complaint against the respondents in the reasons stated in the petition. If a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it shows that the essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only of civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 303 of Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, there is no essential ingredients of the offence alleged in the petition under Sections 406, 417, 420 r/w 109 of IPC are absent - this Court has not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aabasamuthiram, Tirunelveli District. This Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The dismissal of a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the subsequent criminal revision case challenging the order.

Analysis:
The petitioner/complainant filed a private complaint against the respondents, alleging fraudulent activities related to a car purchase. The complaint detailed the purchase of a TATA Indica Car and subsequent issues with the respondents regarding payment and the return of the car. The petitioner claimed that despite multiple complaints to the police, no action was taken. The petitioner was examined as a witness in the case but failed to produce any witnesses or documents during the sworn statement.

The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition after evaluating the case's merits. The Magistrate noted that the petitioner had not taken necessary actions to address the issues before the respondents initiated legal proceedings. The Magistrate highlighted that the sale agreement for the car did not mention the cheque issue raised by the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner's failure to send a notice or take action regarding the cheque before legal action was initiated was noted.

The judgment referenced a legal precedent stating that a complaint can be dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. if the essential elements of the alleged offense are absent, or if the dispute is civil in nature. In this case, the court found that the essential elements of the offenses alleged by the petitioner were lacking. Therefore, the court concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Judicial Magistrate's order.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, upholding the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The court confirmed the decision to dismiss the private complaint based on the lack of essential elements in the allegations made by the petitioner.