Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Kiran Bhai Kapadiya and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. —Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.726 of 2016
Decided on 1.11.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kapil Purohit, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit PP, Mr. Pankaj Gupta and Mr. Rajendra Singh (C.O.) Sardar, Bikaner
IMPORTANT POINT
Presumption clause of Negotiable Instruments Act is absolute.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code—Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and conspiracy—Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash proceeding which amounts to abuse of process of law and instituted with an ulterior motive and Court has to act at threshold—Presumption clause of Negotiable Instruments Act is absolute—Allowing complainant to carry on with such malicious criminal proceedings in response to proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would be nothing but abuse of process of law—Cheques were actually issued by complainant, and even if some kind of dispute regarding multiple Firms or words ‘Private Limited’ is there, same can be a good defence for complainant at the time of contesting the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but same cannot be a ground for criminal prosecution against petitioners—FIR quashed. (Paras 9, 10, 13 to 16)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.—This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against FIR No.42 dated 01.03.2016 registered at Police Station, Bichhwal, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
2. The interim order, in this case, was passed on 28.03.2016 and is continuing till date.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the amount outstanding towards M/s. Hariyali Khad Beej Agency was reflected in the ledger for the period from 01.04.2015 to 17.07.2015. The amount was outstanding against the complainant in connection with the goods supplied to the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the post dated cheques for the period were issued on 13.08.2017. The said three cheques bearing No.439033, 439034 and 439035 were submitted on the concerned Bank on 23.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and 24.11.2015 respectively, which were returned by the Bank on 24.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and 25.11.2015 respectively.
5. The legal notice dated 09.12.2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon the complainant on 15.12.2015. On 21.12.2015, a letter was sent by the complainant, denying the outstanding amount of the cheques, and thereafter, the cases were filed on 25.01.2016 bearing Cases No.71/2016, 72/2016 and 73/2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the aforesaid three dishonoured cheques.
6. After filing of the cases on 25.01.2016, as aforesaid, the present FIR was lodged by the complainant on 01.03.2016 as a counter-blast. The copy of the Bank statement of the petitioner is also on record, reflecting that the transaction had taken place between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has however, stated that the cheque was on the name of ‘Karan Agri Genetics’ and not ‘Karan Agri Genetics Private Limited’, and therefore, the petitioners had illegally entered the words ‘Private Limited’ and created a forged document.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that the detailed status report has been submitted, in which the details of the investigation have been mentioned.
9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.P. Gulati, Manager Accounts, M/s. Jetking Infotrain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6051, relevant paras 7 to 9 of which read as under:-
“7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us. From bare perusal of Section 482 of the Code, it is clear that the object of exercise of power Under the Section is to prevent abuse of process of law, and to secure ends of justice. In Rajiv Thapar and Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor : (2013) 3 SCC 330, this Court has enumerated the steps required to be followed before invoking inherent jurisdiction by the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code as under:
“30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure:
30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Ste
