IMPORTANT POINT
Scope and applicability of Section 482, Cr.P.C. discussed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’). By the said petition appellants had prayed for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.1 and the order of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, R. S. Ghat, Barabanki, dated 8th February, 2005 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and issuance of summons to the appellants. The learned magistrate recorded statements of the complainant under Section 200 of Code as well as of the witness under Section 202 of the Code and thereafter issued summons to the appellants to start proceedings. The appellants took the stand that the proceedings were nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. It was pointed out that the summons issued were never served and bailable warrant of arrest and subsequently non-bailable warrant has been issued and even proceedings under Section 82 of the Code have been initiated. The High Court accepted that without service of summons the issuance of bailable as well as non-bailable warrant was uncalled for. It was also directed that the proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the Code was to be stayed and on the appellants appearing before the concerned court the proceedings shall continue. The application was accordingly disposed of.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the background facts clearly show that the proceedings were initiated with a view to harass the appellants and as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the appellants. The order is supported by learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

4. In order to appreciate the stand taken by the appellant it is necessary to take note of the factual position, the same is as follows:

On 1.4.1994 the Respondent no.1 approached the Petitioner no.1 for dealership, and a Letter of Intent appointment of dealer was issued to the Respondent.

On March 2000 the tenure of dealership of the Respondent no.1 was ended as the same was not doing business, incurring heavy debts to the appellant no.1.

On January, 2001 the Respondent no.1 issued cheque bearing no 628701 dated 30.12.2000 for Rs.50,00,000/-(Fifty Lacs) discharging his liability towards the debt incurred against the appellant No.1.

On January, 2001 the Respondent presented the cheque bearing No. 628701 to his bank for withdrawal.

On 23.01.2001 the bank returned the cheque with an endorsement on the return memo i.e. refer to the drawer.

On 05.02.2001 the appellant issued a Legal Notice under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 (in short the ‘NI Act’)

On January 2001, the appellant filed a complaint u/s 138/442 read with Section 141 of the NI Act before the Court of judicial Magistrate-I, Faridabad.

On 12.04.2001, the Trial Court after considering the Complaint and the pre-summoning evidence took cognizance and issued summons against the Respondent. The Respondent no.1 appeared and subsequently was released on bail.

On 04.10.2002 the Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Civil Judge, (J.D.)/District Barabanki alleging that the officials of Petitioner no.1 herein had stolen the cheques bearing No. 0628701 ‘to 0628704, It was further mentioned by him that in the complaint that in the year 1998 he had informed the Bank of Baroda, Barabanki that he has lost the aforesaid cheques and also reported to the same to the SHO, Barabanki. He further alleged that the appellants herein forged the cheques bearing No. 0628701 and presented the same in the bank at Faridabad, and thereby alleged that they had committed an offence under Sections 468 & 471 IPC.

On 08.02.2005 the complaint bearing No. 1343 of 2004 filed by the Respondent No.1 herein came up for hear