IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Merely because on same set of facts with same allegations and averments earlier complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge FIR with police station with same allegations and averments. However, if it is found that subsequent FIR is abuse of process of law and/or same has been lodged only to harass accused, same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(2) When Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed – Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156(3), 210 and 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420/406 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Cheating and criminal breach of trust – Merely because on same set of facts with same allegations and averments earlier complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge FIR with police station with same allegations and averments – However, if it is found that subsequent FIR is abuse of process of law and/or same has been lodged only to harass accused, same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with provisions of Cr.P.C. – Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment – When Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed – Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision – Statute saves inherent power of High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent abuse of process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure ends of justice – Same are powers with High Court, when it exercises powers under Article 226 of Constitution – Subsequent FIR filed by respondent-original complainant can be said to be abuse of process of law and same to be bringing pressure on accused – Impugned FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass appellants – When impugned FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law and to harass appellants-accused, High Court ought to have exercised powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India/482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed impugned FIR to secure ends of justice – Impugned criminal proceedings/FIR quashed. (Paras 5, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 18308 of 2017, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the first information report registered as Case Crime No. 790 of 2017, under Sections 420/406 IPC, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad, the original writ petitioners/accused have preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Same are the powers with High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of Constitution.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 18308 of 2017, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the first information report registered as Case Crime No. 790 of 2017, under Sections 420/406 IPC, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad, the original writ petitioners/accused have preferred the present appeal.

2. The relevant facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are as under:

That one M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. (for short, ‘VBL’) is a licensed franchisee of PepsiCo India Pvt. Ltd. and engaged in the manufacture and sale of carbonated sweetened water, fruit juice, packaged drinking water under the PepsiCo brand. That in the year 2013, the VBL appointed the firm of the complainant - Sanjay Sharma as a Distributor in the area of Loni, District Ghaziabad to sell and distribute the products manufactured by the company. That in the year 2014, the company terminated the contract of distributorship, which according to the appellants was due to non-payment of dues by respondent no.1 herein - original complainant. According to the appellants, thereafter on reconciliation of accounts and as per the statement of accounts maintained by the company, after adjusting of all claims and security deposit, a sum of Rs.9,46,280/-was found to be outstanding upon the complainant, towards the material supplied to him. The complainant issued a cheque dated 15.09.2014 in favour of the company - VBL. The said cheque was presented for encashment on 22.09.2014. The same was dishonoured and returned unpaid by the banker of the complainant due to “insufficient funds”. That thereafter, due to non-payment after the issuance of the statutory legal notices, appellants herein filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 07.11.2014 against R1 and his company Thakur Trading, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad being Complaint Case No. 7652/2014. R1 has been summoned to face the trial. The said complaint is presently pending for disposal. R1 filed a complaint against one of the officers of the company-VBL being FIR No. 1565/2014 dated 15.09.2014 alleging misappropriation of Rs.6,00,000/-by one of the officers of the company, namely, Vipul Verma. That after investigation by the police, the investigating officer submitted a negative final report No. 47/2015 dated 20.01.2015.

2.1 R1 also filed one another case on 09.02.2015 for misappropriation of Rs.31,12,375/-by the appellants. That thereafter R1 filed a complaint/application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ghaziabad for issuance of direction to the Police Station Loni to register FIR against the appellants herein and two other officers of the company alleging misappropriation of an amount of Rs.31,12,375/-. The learned Magistrate, instead of directing the police to register FIR, decided to enquire into the matter by treating the same as a complaint case. That vide order dated 23.03.2015, the learned Magistrate treated the application of R1 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case and an opportunity was granted to R1 to record his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved by order dated 23.03.2015 treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case, R1 filed a criminal revision application No. 70/2015 before the learned Sessions Court, Ghaziabad. That the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad allowed the said revision application and quashed and set aside order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate to consider the material on record and pass speaking order afresh for assigning reasons for consideri