The court emphasized the need to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice, and highlighted the circumstances under which the power of quashing a criminal proceeding could be exercised.

Anima Hazarika, J.

1. Invoking power under Section 397 / 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short), the three Revision petitions have been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the proceedings of the case Nos. 779c/2003, 780c/2003 and 782c/2003 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Guwahati.

2. Vide order dated 5.1.2004 a Single Bench of this Court directed that all the three revision petitions namely, Criminal Revision Nos. 2/2004, 5/2004 and 6/2004 be listed before one Bench for analogous hearing. Accordingly, these three revision petitions were listed together which are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts which gave rise to the present petition are that the complainant (Respondent herein) Sri Hitendra Das had given a loan amounting to Rs. 6,76,000/- to the present Petitioner on 16.1.2003. To liquidate the said amount a cheque of Rs. 3,75,000/- was issued by the Petitioner in favour of the complainant on 16.1.2003. The second cheque of Rs. 1,75,000/- was issued on 24.1.2003 and third cheque of Rs. 1,20,000/- was issued on 25.1.2003. However, all these three cheques were dishonoured on the ground of "insufficient fund". Therefore, the Respondent filed three complaint cases under Sections 138 / 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act., 1881 as amended by Banking Public Institutions Negotiable Instrument (amended) Act, 1988 (the Act for short). The three complaint cases so filed by the Respondent/complainant were numbered as 779c/03, 780c/03 and 782c/03. The cases were taken up by three different Courts of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup, Guwahati. The learned Courts after examining the complainant under Section 200 of the Code found materials of Section 138 of the Code available and hence, while taking cognizance, the Court issued summons to the accused (Petitioner herein). On several dates the accused being not present in the Court, the learned Court issued non-bailable warrant of arrest (NBWA for short) against the accused Petitioner. These three revision petitions are therefore filed by the Petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceedings as indicated hereinabove.

4. Heard Mr. R.D. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam.

5. The ground of attack as pleaded in the petition are manifold. The grounds on which quashing is sought for, inter alia, are as follows:

(i) The learned Magistrate erred in law as well as in fact in taking cognizance of the case without properly examining the fact.

(ii) It is time barred proceeding.

(iii) The cheque was not issued because of any debt or liability but because of brute force used by the Respondent complainant against the Petitioner.

(iv) The Petitioner has already paid to the Respondent complainant a sum of Rs. 2,87,000/- before issuing summons to the Petitioner by the learned trial Court.

6. Referring to the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Lal has vehemently submitted that if the proceedings are allowed to continue, it would be abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, it is a fit case for quashing the proceedings, Mr. Lal has further drawn the attention of the Court to the case of Manik Lodh v. State of Assam and Anr. reported in 2007 (3) GLT 207 : 2008 (1) GLR 804, wherein it has been held that when a part payment is received by the holder of the cheque towards the total amount for which the cheque stood issued, holder of the cheque cannot demand payment of the entire cheque amount and cannot launch prosecution against the drawer of the cheque on dishonour of such a cheque for insufficiency of funds.

7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand has urged the following grounds in support of his contention:

(i) The prayer of the Petitioner for quashing of the proceedings under Section482 of the Code is not mainta