Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (12) TMI 236 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the FIR can be quashed based on the contention that the dispute is of a civil nature and lacks the elements of criminal deception or fraud.
2. Whether the absence of the company as an accused affects the validity of the FIR against the individuals.
3. Whether the prima facie allegations in the FIR justify the continuation of criminal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Nature of Dispute - Civil vs. Criminal
The petitioner argued that the dispute arises from a commercial transaction and does not involve criminal intent, thus should be treated as a civil matter. The petitioner emphasized that mere breach of contract does not constitute an offense under Section 420 IPC unless deception was present from the inception. The petitioner cited several judgments, including Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivan and Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, to support the claim that criminal proceedings should not be initiated for civil disputes.

In contrast, the respondent contended that the FIR clearly indicates false representation and deception from the beginning. The respondent argued that the allegations in the FIR, including the issuance and dishonor of multiple cheques, substantiate the claim of deception. The respondent cited judgments such as Vijayander Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi, which held that commercial transactions could involve elements of cheating and fraud, justifying criminal proceedings.

The court noted that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs should be exercised sparingly. It referred to Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court held that FIRs could only be quashed if there was no material indicating deception from the inception. The court found that the allegations in the FIR prima facie suggest elements of deception and fraud, thus warranting further investigation.

Issue 2: Absence of the Company as an Accused
The petitioner argued that the FIR is invalid as the company involved in the transaction was not made an accused. The petitioner cited Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane and Kashish Gupta vs. City Public Prosecutor, where the courts quashed proceedings against individuals when the company was not made a party.

The court distinguished the present case by noting that the allegations were made against the individuals (husband and wife) in their personal capacities, not merely as representatives of the company. The court held that the absence of the company as an accused does not absolve the individuals if the allegations are directed at them personally.

Issue 3: Prima Facie Allegations and Continuation of Proceedings
The court examined whether the prima facie allegations in the FIR justify the continuation of criminal proceedings. It referred to Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi, which held that the factual foundation for the offense in the complaint should not be hastily dismissed during the investigation stage. The court found that the allegations of false promises and the issuance of dishonored cheques by the petitioners indicate a prima facie case of deception.

The court also referred to Lakshman vs. State of Karnataka, which held that the presence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal prosecution if there are elements of cheating and fraud. The court concluded that the FIR's allegations warrant further investigation and that quashing the FIR at this stage would be premature.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, stating that the allegations in the FIR prima facie indicate elements of deception and fraud, justifying the continuation of criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the absence of the company as an accused does not invalidate the FIR against the individuals, and the matter of deception from the inception is a question of evidence to be determined during the investigation.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates