2022 (8) TMI 534 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - forging of appellant signature - complaint alleges that the cheque was allotted to the appellant by the Canara Bank, 30 years back and was not in use for want of new MCRI number - section of 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - Though detailed investigation was conducted and the final report was filed, the order of the High Court will indicate that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not only brief, but cryptic. The High Court, neither has adverted to the facts arising in the case in detail nor to the nature of the allegation which led to the investigation and the filing of the final report. The only observation which appears to have influenced the decision of the High Court is that the cheque leaf belongs to the appellant and it contains her signature and there is no allegation of threat. The non-examination of the case is incorrect perspective, keeping in view the guideline laid down by this Court to be borne in mind while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in various decisions, more particularly in the case of STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS BHAJAN LAL 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT has led to an order which on the face of it is not sustainable. Having noted that the High Court has quashed the final report without adverting to either the facts or law by a cryptic order, it would be appropriate for us to set aside the order and restore the petition to the file to the High Court so as to enable the parties to put forth their contentions and allow the High Court to comprehensively advert to the matter on facts and law. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of final report under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 472 IPC by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of forgery and attempt to extract money based on a fraudulent cheque.
3. Appellant's challenge to the High Court's order on grounds of insufficient reasoning and failure to consider facts and law comprehensively.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the High Court's order quashing the final report under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 472 IPC. The High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., citing that the cheque leaf belonged to the appellant, contained her signature, and there was no allegation of threat. However, the High Court's decision was criticized for being brief and cryptic, failing to consider the nature of the allegations and the investigation process comprehensively. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order lacked detailed examination of facts and law, violating the guidelines set by previous judgments. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of a thorough analysis of the case on both factual and legal grounds.

2. The case revolved around the appellant's complaint that a 30-year-old unused cheque of Rs.3,50,000 was fraudulently obtained by the respondent, who allegedly forged the appellant's signature to withdraw money. The investigation led to the filing of a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., accusing the respondent of committing offenses under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 472 IPC. Despite the detailed investigation and submission of the final report, the High Court's order to quash the proceedings was deemed inadequate by the Supreme Court due to its lack of detailed examination and failure to consider the appellant's allegations and the evidence presented during the investigation.

3. The Supreme Court highlighted the High Court's error in quashing the final report without a comprehensive review of the case's facts and legal aspects. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough analysis of the case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as established in previous judgments. By setting aside the High Court's order and remanding the case for a fresh decision, the Supreme Court ensured that all parties could present their arguments, and the High Court could provide a detailed examination of the matter based on both factual and legal considerations. The appellant's challenge to the High Court's order was upheld, and the case was restored to the High Court for a more comprehensive review in accordance with the law.