IMPORTANT POINT
False criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue.

ORDER

1. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 16th December, 2008 quashing the criminal complaint filed by the appellant - complainant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 385, 209 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC against the accused respondents this appeal has been filed. The appellant - complainant who has died during the pendency of the present appeal is being represented by his legal heirs.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

3. The appellant - complainant was the accused in a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”) which had been instituted by the respondent(s) herein. The gravamen of the allegations in the said proceeding under section 138 of the N.I. Act is dishonour of a cheque of Rs. 20,62,418/-claimed to have been issued by the appellant - complainant to the respondent(s) herein. Instead of appearing before the learned trial Court in the said proceedings under section 138 of the N.I. Act and taking up a defence, the appellant - complainant had instituted the present criminal proceeding against the respondents accused alleging that the cheque claimed to have been dishonoured to be a forged one. The claim of forgery qua the cheque in question was based on a statement appearing in the Complaint Petition (Paragraph 10) which is in the following terms.

“The said accused have forged the blank cheque by writing the date and amount over the said cheque by hatching a conspiracy with common intention to cheat the complainant.”

4. The aforesaid statement in the Complaint Petition clearly and unequivocally states that forgery was committed by the respondents named as accused in the Complaint Petition by entering the date in the cheque and in writing the amount of the cheque. There is no statement by the appellant complainant that the cheque was not signed by him and that it was not handed over to the respondent(s).

5. In the absence of a clear and categorical averment to the above effect the picture that emanates from the above facts is that the cheque in question could, at best, have been handed over by the appellant - complainant as a security to the respondent(s). This is a defence which the appellant complainant, who was the accused in the proceeding under section 138 of the N.I. Act, could have but did not take in the said proceeding. However, insofar as the offences of forgery, etc. are concerned, the averments in the Complaint Petition do not even prima facie indicate commission of the said offences by the accused respondents.

6. We, therefore, though for slightly different reasons, agree with the final conclusion of the High Court that the impugned proceeding under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 385, 209 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC against the accused respondents is liable to be quashed. We order accordingly.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the High court is sustained. Appeal dismissed.