9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 1000 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - The power of quashing of the criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in a rarest of rare case. The Court is not justified in embarking upon the inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim and caprice - In the instant case, the applicants have placed their reliance on some extraneous/defence material. In the instant case, respondent no. 2 has not disputed about filing of the complaints against deceased Selvakumar s/o Govindaraj for having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. We have carefully gone through those five complaints which are part of the record. We are surprised to note that the allegations have been made against deceased Selvakumar alone with the specific contention that he is the proprietor of M/s. Shreejith Traders and in that capacity, he has issued the cheques for the balance amount as referred in the present F.I.R. - In the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT , in para 102, the Supreme Court has given the categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such quashing power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court has considered the intention of cheating right from the inception and further held that the offence of cheating prima facie made out and no ground to quash the F.I.R. Thus, we find that the facts and circumstances of the said case cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case - the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 2 is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and the same is necessary to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. The criminal application is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 257 of 2019. 2. Allegations of unpaid dues and abusive behavior. 3. Defense material and its consideration for quashing F.I.R. 4. Conversion of civil dispute into criminal dispute. 5. Applicability of Supreme Court precedents. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 257 of 2019: The applicants sought to quash the F.I.R. registered with Shrirampur Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC, based on a complaint by respondent no. 2. The court emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and only in rare cases. The court reviewed the case in light of established legal principles and precedents. 2. Allegations of unpaid dues and abusive behavior: Respondent no. 2, involved in the onion trade, alleged that the applicants, proprietors of M/s. Shreejith Traders, failed to pay ?30,77,431/- for onions purchased. When respondent no. 2 demanded the amount at the applicants' office, he was allegedly abused and threatened. This led to the registration of the F.I.R. for cheating, assault, and criminal intimidation. 3. Defense material and its consideration for quashing F.I.R.: The applicants presented complaints filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Selvakumar, who allegedly issued cheques that bounced. The applicants argued that they were not connected to M/s. Shreejith Traders and that the F.I.R. was filed maliciously. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajiv Thaper v. Madan Lal Kapoor, outlining steps to determine the validity of quashing requests based on defense material. The court found that the defense material met the criteria for quashing the F.I.R. 4. Conversion of civil dispute into criminal dispute: The court noted that respondent no. 2 had already filed a civil suit for recovery of the unpaid amount, implicating the applicants as defendants. The court observed that the complaint appeared to be an attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal one, which is not permissible. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), stating that converting a civil dispute into a criminal case to harass the accused warrants quashing of criminal proceedings. 5. Applicability of Supreme Court precedents: The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which provided categories of cases where quashing of criminal proceedings is justified. The court found that the present case fell under the category of proceedings instituted with mala fide intentions. The court also distinguished the present case from Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, where the Supreme Court upheld the F.I.R. based on the accused's intention to cheat from the inception. Conclusion: The court concluded that the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 2 was an abuse of the court's process, motivated by mala fide intentions. The court allowed the criminal application, quashing the F.I.R. while clarifying that the civil suit should be decided on its merits without being influenced by this judgment. The order emphasized the importance of not converting civil disputes into criminal cases and upheld the principles of justice and judicial economy.
|
