Quashing of complaints under Section 482 CrPC is limited to cases where no prima facie case is established, reinforcing the necessity of substantive examination in trial proceedings.

O R D E R

These are petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The petitioner in these petitions is the accused in STC No. 358/2019 and STC No.599/2019 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the original transaction led to issuance of cheques as stated in the complaint is during May, 2010 and thereafter it was alleged that cheques were issued on the basis of an agreement executed in the year 2016. Those cheques along with other cheques, which were not covered by the agreement where used to launch complaints by the complainant. Therefore, the complaints are baseless warranting quashment by invoking power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

4. On a perusal of the respective complaints, it could be noticed that, the complainant raised contention that, the transaction originally started in the first week of May, 2010 and subsequently there was an agreement. According to the complainant, in view of the transaction of the year May, 2010 and subsequent execution of agreement, the present cheques were issued and the same got dishonored when presented for collection.

5. If the accused has any grievance in the matter of passage of consideration as alleged or the execution of the cheques as contented, the same can be addressed by the trial court during evidence alone and therefore, the said grounds that has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, now before this Court cannot be the foundation for quashing the complaints without being adjudicated. 6. 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.”

7. 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 detai