U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 28.03.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 125 of 2016, Vedpal vs. Prashant Panda, under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. The sole respondent field a criminal complaint case against the accused-applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The trial court recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statements of Pradeep and Mukesh were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The documents were filed by the complainant. After considering the material on record, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar summoned the accused-applicant to face the trial for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. Against the summoning order, applicant filed a Revision, which too was dismissed. Hence the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. According to the complainant, accused took a sum of Rs. 20,80,000/- from the complainant by Cheque No. 00793879 on 23.10.2017. The money involved in the cheque has been paid to the accused. The accused-applicant furnished a receipt in his own handwriting in this behalf. There was an agreement that the criminal case pending against the applicant shall be settled after obtaining a sum of Rs. 20,80,000/-. Neither the accused returned the aforesaid amount, nor settled the criminal case pending against the applicant in the court of law.

4. It may be argued that it is a dispute of civil nature. But the contrary argument would be, what is the predominant nature of the dispute? What was the motive of the accused? It can be inferred at this stage that the predominant nature of the proceedings is criminal in nature. Otherwise, what for Section 406 & Section 420 IPC are there in the statute book?

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986 : 2013 (1) NCC 1, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Some of those principles, which are relevant in the context of present case, can be summarized as below:

i. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

ii. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

iii. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.

iv. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

v. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inhe