Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Smt.Asha Bawri – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 6333 of 2022
Decided on : 12-10-2022
For the Appellant : MILLU DANDAPANI, RAMEEZ NOOH
For the Respondent: SRI.T.R.RENJITH
Point of Law: Law is no more res integra on the point that a complaint can be quashed only when it falls under the category of cases as per the principles set out by the Apex Court
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 - Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 r/w 142, 143(3) - Quashing complaint and consequential proceedings - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by the petitioner allegedly towards the value of goods purchased by the accused/petitioner herein was dishonoured when it was presented for collection. (Para 7).
Findings of the Court :
Shifting of liability after issuance of cheque as stated in Annexure-A6 has no significance, since penal provisions would attack against the person who issued the cheque. Therefore, mere contention in Annexure-A6 is not a ground to quash the entire proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the materials available before this Court would go to show that the 1st respondent made out a case to proceed further and in such a case if the accused has any contentions otherwise, the same can be put up during trial and in the present case such a quashment of the entire proceedings cannot be justified.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
This Crl.M.C has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure-A3 complaint and consequential proceedings on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I Act Cases), Ernakulam. The respondents herein are State of Kerala and the defacto complainant.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Notice to the 2nd respondent stands dispensed with.
3. In this matter as per Annexure-A3 complaint, the 2nd respondent herein launched prosecution alleging commission of offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the `N.I Act' for convenience) consequent on dishonour of cheque for Rs.5,10,186/-alleged to be issued by the petitioner herein for the value of the goods purchased by the petitioner/accused from the complainant and other charges. While canvassing quashment of the entire proceedings, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Annexure-A6 registered notice dated 10.10.2015, the petitioner informed the 2nd respondent that due to some changes in the management from 4.7.2015, all the previous liability would be undertaken by Sri Montu Saikia as per a registered agreement. Therefore, the petitioner herein has no liability in so far as the dishonour of the cheque is concerned and therefore the prosecution is without any basis and the same required to be quashed.
4. Before addressing the prayer, I am tend to refer what are the principles governing quashment of complaints under Section 482 of Cr.P.C?
5. In the decision reported in [1976 (3) SCC 736], Smt.Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, the Apex Court enumerated the list of cases where an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside.
The same are as under:
“(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complainant does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.”
That apart, in the decisions reported in [1988(1) SCC 692],
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; [1995 (6) SCC 194], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; [1996 (5) SCC 591], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.; [1996 (8) SCC 164], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla; [1999 (3) SCC 259], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi; [2000 (3) SCC 269], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E.Ltd.; [2000 (4) SCC 168], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar; [ 2001(8) SCC 645], M.Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; [2005(1) SCC 122], Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, the Apex Court summarised the principles while quashing a complaint. The principles are as under:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the
