TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cheque dated 6.8.2008 issued by the Appellant company for encashing a sum of ₹ 30 lakhs. Due to the efforts of the Appellant company IIBI finally agreed and issued letter of acceptance dated 5.1.2009. One year later, the 3rd Respondent sent a letter dated 6.3.2010 to the Appellant company demanding the balance amount of ₹ 70 lakhs towards the consultancy fee. No allegation whatsoever was made against the Appellants herein in the said letter. It was only mentioned in it that the consultation fee remains unpaid and the company is delaying the payment on one pretext or the other. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief are as follows: The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2011 is a Limited company of which Appellants Venkataraman in Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2011 and Appellant Mani Prasad in Criminal Appeal No. 2343 of 2011 were Directors and the Appellant Chandrasekhran in Criminal Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 was the promoter. The Company availed a loan from the Industrial Investment Bank of India and Respondent No. 3 herein/complainant as the AGM of the said bank at the relevant time, dealt with their loan application and had sanctioned the same. The company defaulted in repayment and wanted to settle the loan amount. The 3rd Respondent on retirement from the bank agreed to act as a Consultant of the company in settling the loan and the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sultancy fee as promised and they conspired together to deceive the complainant and committed offences as alleged. The company and its Directors filed petitions Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal M.C. No. 220 to 222 of 2011 on the file of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam contending that the understanding between the company and the complainant was that the settlement with the IIBI should be completed by 30.10.2008 and the complainant was not able to settle the loan before the said date and hence he could not present the cheque in the light of the condition imposed on him in the letter dated 6.8.2008 and the settlement was completed only on 5.1.2009 due to the efforts of the company itself and not at the instance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per contra the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 contended that there is no merit in the contention of the Appellants that the FIR discloses only a civil case or that there is no allegation making out the criminal offence of cheating. It is his further contention that the facts in the present case may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the complainant that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. In support of his submission he relied on the decision of this Court in Vijayander Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. [(2014) 3 SCC 389]. 5. We also heard the learned Counsel for the State namely Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 6. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the settlement of disputes of the Appellant company. The 3rd Respondent also did not present the cheque dated 6.8.2008 issued by the Appellant company for encashing a sum of ₹ 30 lakhs. Due to the efforts of the Appellant company IIBI finally agreed and issued letter of acceptance dated 5.1.2009. One year later, the 3rd Respondent sent a letter dated 6.3.2010 to the Appellant company demanding the balance amount of ₹ 70 lakhs towards the consultancy fee. No allegation whatsoever was made against the Appellants herein in the said letter. It was only mentioned in it that the consultation fee remains unpaid and the company is delaying the payment on one pretext or the other. In this context it is relevant to point out that after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedent for an offence Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be malafide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. 10. Accordingly all the appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 28.1.2011 rendered by the High Court is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
