Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 628 - SC - Indian LawsTheft of signed cheques - Conspiracy with bank to withdraw money from Respondent s account - Quashing of proceedings under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 457, 458 and 477 IPC - Held that - object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straight jacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. Courts have to be very careful while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold. A clear reading of the complaint does not make out any offence against the appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. We are of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit. It all amounts to negligence in discharging official work at the maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty - continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. is a pure abuse of process of law and the complaint case deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice - Decided in favour of Appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings against the appellant. 2. Allegations of conspiracy and negligence by the appellant. 3. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Against the Appellant: The appellant sought to quash the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2397 of 2012 under various sections of the IPC, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The High Court of Allahabad had previously refused this prayer. The Supreme Court examined whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant constituted an abuse of the process of law. The appellant argued that he had no involvement in the alleged offences and that his name was included in the complaint to malign and defame him. The Supreme Court concluded that the complaint did not make out any offence against the appellant and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was an abuse of process of law. 2. Allegations of Conspiracy and Negligence by the Appellant: The complainant alleged that the appellant, as the Branch Manager of the Ghaziabad District Co-operative Bank, was part of a conspiracy to misuse stolen cheques from the complainant's account. The appellant was accused of failing to inform the police or the complainant when a stolen cheque was presented for payment, despite having received written instructions on 17th May 2004 to cancel the lost cheques. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had not cleared the cheque when it was presented and that his alleged failure to inform the police did not constitute a criminal offence but, at most, negligence or dereliction of duty. 3. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for Quashing the Complaint: The Supreme Court emphasized the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which allows the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The Court cited precedents, including Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which outline the cautious approach required when exercising this power. The Court reiterated that the power under Section 482 should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint do not disclose any offence. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that the allegations against the appellant did not prima facie establish any offence, and thus, the continuation of the proceedings would result in a miscarriage of justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant in Complaint Case No. 2397 of 2012. The Court held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was an abuse of process of law and that the complaint did not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences under the IPC.
|