JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam for the State were heard.

2. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 406 and 420 IPC on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 as well as criminal proceeding in CR Case No. 572/2012 arising out of the said complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury placing reliance on a decision of this court rendered in Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. Delta Classic Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (4) GLT 741 contended that the learned Trial Court while taking cognizance under Section 420/406 IPC on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent, did not apply judicial mind, inasmuch as, on the same set of facts, a person cannot be held liable simultaneously for offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and cheating under Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court took cognizance and issued process mechanically without applying judicial mind and therefore the order of taking cognizance under Section 406 and 420 IPC, as well as, the criminal proceeding is required to be quashed.

4. Before adverting to the submission of the learned counsel, it will be apposite to have a look at the scope of interference with the criminal proceeding at the threshold, in the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, which may not require much effort. The law relating to the scope of interference with the criminal proceeding and quashing a complaint or an FIR at the threshold, in the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is well settled by a long line of judicial decision. The Apex Court in the celebrated decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (Supp. 1) SCC 335, while dealing with the contour of power under Section 482 CrPC enunciated the following principles, which have been followed in a number of decision of the Apex Court

“(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely, do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance of the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal private grudg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document