TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been made against deceased Selvakumar alone with the specific contention that he is the proprietor of M/s. Shreejith Traders and in that capacity, he has issued the cheques for the balance amount as referred in the present F.I.R. - In the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, [ 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT ], in para 102, the Supreme Court has given the categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such quashing power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court has considered the intention of cheating right from the inception and further held that the offence of cheating prima facie made out and no ground to quash the F.I.R. Thus, we find that the facts and circumstances of the said case cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case - the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 2 is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and the same is necessary to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. The criminal application is allowed. - Criminal Application No. 1172 of 2020 - - - Dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id M/s. Shreejith Traders. Learned counsel submits that the applicants have no concern with the said M/s. Shreejith Traders in any manner. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the cheques issued by said Selvakumar were bounced, five complaints under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be filed by respondent no. 2 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrirampur. During pendency of the said complaints said Selvakumar died. However, the said complaints, though stand abated, are still pending before the Magistrate. Learned counsel submits that however, in the year 2018, respondent no. 2 has instituted Special Civil Suit No. 29 of 2018 against the applicants herein presenting them in the said suit as partners-owners of the said M/s. Shreejith Traders. It has been pleaded in the said suit that deceased Selvakumar, who issued six cheques out of which five cheques were bounced, was the power of attorney-cum-owner of M/s. Shreejith Traders and as such, respondent no. 2 is entitled for recovery of the balance amount with interest from the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that for the first time when the said Selvakumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the locus of the present applicants in the afore-stated special civil suit instituted by him before the Civil Court for recovery of the amount. Learned counsel submits that there are specific allegations against the applicants that they had purchased huge quantity of onion from respondent no. 2 and failed to pay him the entire amount. Learned counsel submits that it is not an attempt to convert the civil dispute into criminal dispute. This application is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, in order to substantiate his contention, placed his reliance on the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1216. 8. We have also heard learned APP for the respondent State. 9. We are well aware that the power of quashing of the criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in a rarest of rare case. The Court is not justified in embarking upon the inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent no. 2 has not disputed about filing of the complaints against deceased Selvakumar s/o Govindaraj for having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. We have carefully gone through those five complaints which are part of the record. We are surprised to note that the allegations have been made against deceased Selvakumar alone with the specific contention that he is the proprietor of M/s. Shreejith Traders and in that capacity, he has issued the cheques for the balance amount as referred in the present F.I.R. Though respondent no. 2 has filed his affidavit-in-reply, we do not find that respondent no. 2 has explained this aspect to our satisfaction. There is no reference to the names of these applicants in the said complaints either as partners or also as the proprietors of the said firm along with deceased Selvakumar. It is also not stated in those complaints that deceased Selvakumar, being a power of attorney, had issued the cheques in favour of respondent no. 2 for the balance amount on behalf of the firm and therefore, since he being the signatory of the cheques, the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Anand Kumar Mohatta and another v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 the Supreme Court has ruled that where a civil dispute is converted into criminal case to harass the accused, exercise of power to quash criminal proceedings warranted. In the instant case, the dispute is purely of civil nature and it does not constitute criminal offence. 17. The learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has placed his reliance in the case of Rajesh Bajaj (supra) wherein, the Supreme Court has taken a different view in the facts of the said case. It has been specifically observed by the Supreme Court in the facts of the said case that the accused made the complainant to believe that he (accused) was a genuine dealer and would make the payment on receipt of invoices. It thus appears that the Supreme Court has considered the intention of cheating right from the inception and further held that the offence of cheating prima facie made out and no ground to quash the F.I.R. Thus, we find that the facts and circumstances of the said case cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. In view of the above discussio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
