2023 (9) TMI 132 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Counter allegation of deception - Supply of inferior quality of goods - suddenly stopped to supply the goods, which had again caused considerable loss - deposit of some post-dated cheques for encashment beyond the terms and conditions, without intimation - HELD THAT - Admittedly one criminal prosecution is pending u/s 138 of NI Act against the present complainant. The present complainant initiated the instant criminal compliant with the allegation of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complainant has adopted a procedure in the form of criminal complaint against a company which have filed a criminal prosecution u/s 138 of NI Act. The way of approaching the court of Magistrate by the complainant company appears to be the counter blast of the criminal prosecution u/s 138 of NI Act - ends of justice cannot be arrived at between the parties under the fear of the process of the court. The private companies are regularly filing mischievous complaint before the court of Magistrate in similar fashions nowadays. The Hon ble Supreme court in several occasions has come heavily upon such conduct of the complainant. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the of State of Hariyana Vs. Bhajanlal 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT has specifically observed that if after taking the petition of complaint and evidences therein to be true, the court find no prima facie offence being made out against the accused persons, the High Court is free to quash the proceeding u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. So considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and considering the materials on record, there are merits to entertain the criminal revision - impugned Order passed by the Learned Magister is hereby set aside - revision allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Criminal revision under sections 379/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside an order dismissing the application under section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Summary:

1. The complaint alleged supply of inferior goods, sudden stoppage of supply, and unauthorized cheque deposit by the petitioner. The Magistrate issued summons under sections 406/468/420 IPC after examining witnesses.

2. Petitioner sought discharge before charge framing, which was rejected by the Magistrate. Petitioner claimed the prosecution was civil in nature and a counterblast to a separate case against the complainant.

3. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the discharge application, as the ingredients of the alleged offences were not established. The state contended that the evidences were recorded before charge framing and no illegality was found in the Magistrate's decision.

4. The court analyzed the complaint's allegations regarding breach of trust, forgery, and cheating under sections 406, 468, and 420 IPC. It found that the elements of criminal intent and deception were not sufficiently established.

5. The court noted that a separate criminal complaint under section 138 of the NI Act was pending against the complainant, leading to the conclusion that the present complaint was a counterblast. The court emphasized the misuse of the legal process for ulterior motives.

6. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court set aside the Magistrate's order, quashed the criminal proceeding, and allowed the criminal revision. The court highlighted the need to prevent misuse of legal procedures for personal vendettas.

7. The order dated July 19, 2018, in the case was set aside, and the pending criminal proceeding was quashed. Any stay orders were vacated, and parties were directed to act accordingly.