SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 1854

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Nagpur Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. - Appellants
Versus
P. Radhakrishna Alias Rajan and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 445 of 1989
Decided On : 06-05-1997

The nature of a commercial transaction does not automatically preclude the commission of an offence, and the decision to proceed with a trial should be based on the evidence presented.

Headnote:

Commercial Transaction - Quashing of Criminal Complaint - The complaint disclosed the commission of an offence and warranted a trial, despite being related to a commercial transaction. The quashing of the complaint resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a complaint for an offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, alleging that the respondents had given unequivocal assurances leading to the supply of material and acceptance of cheques, which were later dishonored due to lack of funds.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court quashed the complaint based on the commercial nature of the transaction, but the Supreme Court found that the complaint disclosed the commission of an offence and warranted a trial. The quashing of the complaint resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the commission of an offence and warranted a trial despite being related to a commercial transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: Merely because the offence was committed during the course of a commercial transaction, it was not sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a trial. The decision to proceed with the trial should be based on the evidence to be led at the trial.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the complaint for the trial magistrate to proceed with and dispose of it in accordance with the law expeditiously.

ORDER :

Dr. A.S. Anand, J.

1. The appellant filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur being Criminal Case No. 391 of 1984 for an offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. In substance the grievance projected in the complaint was that but for the unequivocal assurances given by the respondents to the appellant, the material would not have been supplied by the appellant nor cheques accepted, which were later on not honoured because of the lack of funds. The complaint was forwarded for enquiry to the police under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and after receipt of the enquiry report, the learned trial Magistrate issued process against the respondents. The respondents, thereupon, filed a criminal application in the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the complaint and the issuance of the process. The High Court vide the order impugned herein quashed the complaint. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the record. It appears to us that the High Court was primarily influenced by the fact that since there was a commercial transaction between the parties and alleged breach of contractual liability, there was no sufficient ground to proceed with the trial of the respondents and quashed the criminal complaint and the proceedings arising therefrom.

3. We have perused the complaint carefully. In our opinion it cannot be said that the complaint did not disclose the commission of an offence. Merely because the offence was committed during the course of a commercial transaction, would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a trial. Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true was to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led at the trial in the complaint case. It certainly was not a case in which the criminal trial should have been cut short. The quashing of the complaint has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. We, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the complaint. The learned trial Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint and dispose of it in accordance with law expeditiously.

4. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Appeal allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top