Points of law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent Power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Babu Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, learned AGA, who appears for the opposite party no.1.

2. The present application purported to be under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Complaint Case No.1546 of 2020, (Anuj Traders Vs. Surendra Singh) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1938 P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur arising out of summoning order dated 4.3.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint against the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act alleging that the applicant had taken loan of a certain amount from the opposite party no.2. It has further been lodged previously also the applicant used to take loan/financial assistance from opposite party no.2.

4. Consequently, the applicant issued a cheque of State Bank of India Branch Tilhar having account no.39516567432 dated 29.10.2020 and when the said cheque was submitted in the bank account of the opposite party no.2, then the same was not passed for the reason that request of stop payment has been made by the applicant. Even after the notice, the applicant did not pay the said amount.

5. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 filed the complaint case no.1546 of 2010. The affidavit was submitted under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

6. The Court below by virtue of the order impugned dated 4.3.2021 has now issued summons to the applicant herein for the offence referable to Section 138 N.I. Act.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 has the occasion to consider the parameter provisions contained under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. 1898 viz-a-viz the provisions contained under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has carved out the same exceptions which relating to exercise of inherent power as conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. referable to quash all the criminal proceeding at the behest of the accused.

“(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category.

(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not.

(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.”

8. The following judgment in the case of R.P. Kapur (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 held as under:-

“102.(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are tak