2017 (8) TMI 1306 - HC - Indian Laws

Liability under Negotiable Instruments Act - allegation against the present petitioner is that he stole the cheques and asked Satveer to make payment within seven days or face the consequence. The cheques of Axis Bank were presented but payment towards those cheques was stopped at the instance of the complainant under the belief that the cheques were stolen by the present petitioner - FIT lodged - Held that - After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar this Court is of the opinion that on the face of it the impugned FIR is nothing but a counterblast as the respondent became aware of the cheques being dishonoured on 29.03.2017 and out of fear of the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act the complaint was lodged on 30.03.2017. As the complainant had the knowledge that he shall be facing the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and there was no reason available with the present petitioner so as to stole the cheques in concern. In light of the aforesaid discussion as well as the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner the present misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR dated 15.04.2017 bearing No.203/2017 registered at Nohar Police Station District Hanumangarh is quashed and set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to quash the registration and investigation of FIR under Sections 379, 420, 452, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR alleging it was a counterblast due to fear of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner argued the FIR was improbable as the complainant delayed reporting the alleged theft of cheques. Citing a precedent, the petitioner contended that the FIR was an abuse of process to escape liability. The respondent opposed, claiming quick action was taken upon receiving SMS about dishonored cheques. The court considered the timing of the complaint and the motive behind it. Relying on Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court referred to the precedent law to quash proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide intent. Condition No.7 of the precedent was deemed applicable, concluding the complaint was maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance.

The court highlighted the importance of preventing abuse of legal processes and the need to act promptly in such cases. The judgment emphasized the significance of judicial conscience in quashing criminal proceedings when mala fide intent is evident. The court invoked the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, aligning with the principles laid down in the precedent case. The decision to quash the FIR was based on the analysis of the circumstances, timing of events, and the application of legal principles to prevent misuse of the legal system for personal vendettas.