HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Jitendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1262/2020
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Abuse of Process of Law - Quashing of FIR
Fact of the Case:
The accused petitioner filed a petition to quash FIR No.183/2017 for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, claiming it to be false and frivolous due to a delay of two years and lack of proof.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant lodged the FIR as a counter-blast to pending proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and allowing the FIR to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Issues: Delay in filing FIR, lack of proof of payments, and abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the delay in filing the FIR, absence of proof of payments, and the complainant's motive in lodging the FIR as a counter-blast, leading to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner praying to quash FIR No.183/2017 registered at Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR lodged by the complainant is false & frivolous. Complainant has filed the present FIR by efflux of long a long time, i.e. delay of two years. Offence mentioned in the FIR is baseless and without proof of truth. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed many criminal cases against the complainant under Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that legal notice was given to the complainant, so, complainant had to lodge the present FIR as a counter-blast. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that cognizance was also taken on 28.08.2017 against the complainant for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a bare reading of the FIR, no offence against the petitioner is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant developed many stories but he did not provide any proof regarding payments made by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if the impugned FIR is allowed to continue against the petitioner, then the same will amount to abuse of process of law. So, present FIR filed by the complainant be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sanjeet Kumar v. State Of Bihar; Criminal Appeal No.852/2009, decided on 27.04.2009 and judgments passed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Ajeet Pal Singh Ranawat v. State Of Rajasthan; S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous(Pet.) No.3008/2018, decided on 27.02.2019 and Kiran Bhai Kapadiya v. State Of Rajasthan; S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.726/2016 decided on 01.11.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after investigation, Investigating Officer had found proved the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioner. They further submitted that the petitioner had taken Rs.5,60,000/- on various occasions from the complainant and he had taken two cheques duly signed and same cheques were used in complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent.
6. It is an admitted position that a complaint was made for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the petitioner against the complainant and cognizance was also taken against him. It is also admitted position that the present FIR was lodged after a delay of two years. Complainant-Respondent in its complaint stated that the petitioner had taken Rs.5,60,000/- on various occasions but complainant had not submitted any proof with regard to the payments. Notice was given to the complainant before filing the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but complainant had not replied to the said notice. Thus, the complainant has lodged the present FIR as a counter-blast of the proceedings pending against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. So, in my considered opinion, while allowing the proceedings in the present FIR, it would amount to abuse of process of law. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to allow the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The FIR No.183/2017 registered at Police Station Christianganj, Ajm
The court can quash a FIR and criminal proceedings if allowing them to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Filing a criminal complaint with mala fide intention to abuse the process of law and avoid proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not permissible.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles for quashing FIRs, emphasizing the need for sound and reasonable material to rule out the assertions contained....
The settlement of a complaint and non-receipt of notices can lead to the quashing of an FIR under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court's decision was influenced by the principles laid down in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi and State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., emphasizing the need for sound, ....
Withdrawal of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act nullifies the basis for subsequent proceedings under Section 174A IPC, preventing abuse of process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.