IMPORTANT POINT
Power u/s 482 CrPC should be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice.

Judgment

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 4.3.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Criminal Misc. Application (Section. 482) No. 6667 of 2014 whereby said Court has disposed of the same declining to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1446/9 of 2013, relating to offences punishable Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 406 of Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code), P.S. Nauchandi, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-4, Meerut, with certain observations.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and' perused the papers on record.

3. Succinctly, facts of the case are that Appellant is Manager Accounts with M/s. Jetking Infotrain Ltd. There was a franchisee agreement between the Appellant's company and M/s. SVS Computers Ltd., of which Respondent No. 2 Vishal Sharma (complainant) is one of the directors. Said franchisee agreement expired on 29.6.2011. There was some dispute as to the clearance of outstanding dues of M/s. Jetking Infotrain Ltd., due to which, it appears that it sent a notice for payment before renewal of the agreement of franchisee. It is pleaded before us that Respondent No. 2 tendered two cheques towards franchisee fee for the year 2013-14, on behalf of M/s. SVS Computers Ltd. Out of the two cheques, one bearing No. 63873 dated 27.6.2013 drawn on Union Bank of India, Noida, for an amount of Rs. 7,86,641/-, when presented before the Bankers, was dishonoured on account of "payment stopped by the drawer" endorsement. However, another cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,10,400/- was honoured. On this, Appellant's company issued notice dated 13.7.2013 to Respondent No. 2 calling upon to make payment of dishonoured cheque on behalf of M/s. SVS Computers Ltd. When Respondent No. 2 ignored the same, on behalf of M/s. Jetking Infotrain Ltd. a criminal complaint case No. 630 of 2013 was filed against Respondent No. 2 Vishal Sharma, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardoma Courts, Delhi, in respect of offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act").

4. It is stated that after the above complaint was filed, Respondent No. 2, as a counter blast, filed allegedly frivolous criminal complaint case No. 1446 of 2013, relating to offences punishable Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 Indian Penal Code, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-4, Meerut against the Appellant and other directors of the Appellant's company. It is further pleaded that filing of the complaint in question, subsequent to the complaint filed by the Appellant, is nothing but harassment and abuse of process of law on the part of Respondent No. 2. As such, the Appellant filed a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") before Allahabad High Court for quashment of the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-4, Meerut, which was dismissed by said court. Hence this appeal through special leave.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the High Court has erred in law in ignoring the fact that a criminal complaint was already filed against Respondent No. 2 in respect of offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Act. It is contended that said fact is admitted between the parties. It is further contended that to pressurize the Appellant in said criminal case, impugned criminal proceedings were initiated at Meerut which is nothing but abuse of process of law.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent, defending the impugned order, submitted before us that the High Court has rightly observed that the Appellant can raise the objections as to whether offences alleged against him are made out or not at the time of framing of charge before the trial court. It is further pointed out that the High Court has already protected the interest of the Appellant by observing that if he appears before the trial court within thirty da