Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Suresh Kait, J.
White Metals P. Ltd. and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Kanika Metals P. Ltd. —Respondent
Cri .MC No. 1753 of 2007
Decided on 1.9.2011
IMPORTANT POINT
Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is not an instrument to accused to short circuit prosecution and brings about its closure without full-fledged enquiry.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138 read with Sections 406 and 420 of IPC—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Dishonour of cheque—Summons issued—Pendency of present case shall not come in way of trial court adjudication upon petitioner’s complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act—It is disputed question of fact which needs determination as to whether there was any running account in between parties—This is not the forum where documentary evidence can be looked into—While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code, High Court would not embark upon any enquiry whether evidence is reliable or not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained—This is function of trial Judge/court—Section 482 of Code is not an instrument to accused to short circuit prosecution and brings about its closure without full-fledged enquiry—Petition dismissed. (Paras 21 to 33)
Suresh Kait, J.—The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 145/1 of 2003 filed by the respondent/complainant under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860, 1960 against them and further seeking quashing of order dated 17.2.2007, whereby, summons were issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, against the petitioners.
2. Upon receiving the aforesaid complaint alongwith an accompanying application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 16.8.2003, issued notice to SHO to investigate the case.
3. In pursuance of the above-stated orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the concerned SHO filed its report stating that no cause was made out against the petitioners/ accused persons. However, on 2.11.2004, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ignored the reports of the investigation agency and directed the complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence.
4. The complaint case as stated above was filed on the premise alleged as under:
(i) That on 25.2.2003, the complainant/respondent deputed his employee, namely Sh. Pankaj Chauhan, to go to the premises of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and collect the bill and pay the cheque as payment thereof.
(ii) Towards the payment of the said bill, the respondent/complainant alleged though falsely that it had issued a cheque bearing No.891914 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the column of consideration and the date were left blank for the reasons that the exact value of the goods supplied were not known to the respondent/complainant at that time.
(iii) That Sh. Pankaj Chauhan, employee of the respondent/complainant visited the shop of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 25.2.2003 and a bill No. CM 002/02141 for a sum of Rs. 62,115 was issued and signatures of Sh. Pankaj Chauhan was obtained on the duplicate bill by the petitioners.
(iv) That as Sh. Pankaj Chauhan tried to fill the cheque in the sum of Rs.62,115, the same was snatched by petitioner No.4/accused No.4 and kept with him with the remarks “We will talk first with Sh. Praveen Kapoor, Director of the Complainant Company, who has telephoned two minutes ago regarding rate of material then we will fill up the cheque and present the same with the Bank.”
(v) On enquiry, the Petitioners No.2 to 4 accused No.2 to 4 informed the complainant that the cheque bearing No. 891914 has been lost or misplaced and asked that the complainant should issue a fresh cheque in the sum of Rs. 65,000 since the value of the bill has been changed from Rs. 62,115 to Rs. 65,000. The respondent complainant believed the petitioners accused person and issued another cheque bearing No. 932659 on 21.4.2003 in the sum of Rs. 65,000 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi for clearing the bill.
(vi) The respondent complainant received a demand notice dated 30.6.2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from petitioner No.1 accused No.1, whereby a demand of Rs.6,06, 405 was made on the ground that cheque No.891914 dated 18.6.2003 issued towards payment of the outstanding amount has been dishonoured.
(vii) The cheque in question was entrusted in a blank condition i.e. amount and date was not filed.
5. Mr. H.L. Tikku, Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners contended that the aforesaid complaint is completely false, frivolous, devoid of truth and without any cause of action, much less rather is a mala fide act on the part of the respondent/complainant to implicate the petitioners/accused persons in false, malicious and unwarranted criminal case for the reasons mentioned below:
(i) As on 1.4.2003, the principal amount outstanding against the respondent/complainant in the book of accounts of Petitioner No.1 amounted to Rs.6,65,634.97.
(ii) The respondent/complainant in discharge of its aforesaid liability gave a post-dated cheque dated 18.6.2003 of Rs.6,06,405 in
