Point of Law : If mere pendency of a suit is made as a ground for quashing criminal proceeding unscrupulous litigant apprehending action against them would be encouraged to frustrate the court of justice and by law filing civil suit in respect of documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of the criminal proceeding orin anticipation of such criminal proceeding.

JUDGEMENT :

1. These four petitions, being Criminal Petition No. 763/2019 and Criminal Petition No. 768/2019, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, are preferred by the petitioners namely (1) Kezriwal Sugar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., (2) Shri Surya Prakash Agarwal, and Criminal Petition No. 757/2019 and 762/2019 are filed by Smti. Sangeeta kezriwal for setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 18.01.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, and further proceedings of the NI Case No. 11/2019 & NI Case No. 12/2019, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned order, dated 18.01.2019, the learned Court below had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, and issued summons against the petitioners.

2. It is submitted at the Bar that all the petitions may be disposed of together by a common judgment & order as the same arisen out of a common order involving the same sets of parties and a common question of law; and accordingly, it is decided to dispose of all the petitions by this common judgment & order.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petitions is adumbrated herein below:

“The petitioners, namely, Sri Surya Prakash Agarwal & Smti Sangeeta Kejriwal, are the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 company, i.e. Kejriwal Sugar Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner company and the opposite party/respondent i.e. M/S Gopiram Chetriram, were involved in a business of dealing of Sugar and were indulging in the same since long. In the year 2018, the petitioner company approached the opposite party/respondent to supply 5200 metric tons of sugar and for that, the opposite party/respondent requested the petitioner company for an advance/security of Rs. 10 crores and the petitioner company, on good faith, issued 2 (two) numbers of Cheques, bearing Nos. 001711 & 001712, of Rs. 5 crores each in favour of the opposite party/respondent. But, despite receiving the sum, the opposite party did not deliver the requisite quantity of sugar to the petitioner company and as such, the petitioner company requested the opposite party/respondent to return the cheques so issued, but the same was not done. Thereafter, the petitioner company received a notice from the opposite party through his lawyer, dated 01.10.2018, stating that the cheques were presented for encashment by the opposite party/respondent, but the same were dishonored and the petitioner company, through its reply has stated that the cheques, in question, were never issued for discharge of any liabilities or any legally enforceable debt and cannot be utilized by the opposite party as the same were issued as an security/advance towards the supply of sugar, which the opposite party/respondent failed to do. Then, the petitioner company, on failure to recover the cheques, filed one Suit, being Title Suit No. 01/2019, before the City Civil Court at Calcutta and obtained an injunction order, dated 03.01.2019, retraining the opposite party/respondent from utilizing the cheques in any manner. Thereafter, the opposite party/respondent, concealing the fact about the said injunction order, filed 2 (two) cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, being NI Case No. 11/2019 & NI Case No. 12/2019, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, on 17.01.2019, and the learned Court below, vide impugned order dated 18.01.2019, while taking cognizance of the offence, issued process against the petitioners.”

4. Then, being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant petitions on the grounds:

(i) that the impugned order, dated 18.01.2019, taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summons against the petitioners, is bad in law and abuse of the process of law;

(ii) that the learned Court below failed to consider the fact that the petitioners, herein, are not in charge of and responsible towards t