9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are (1) whether the complaint alleging cheating against another company and its directors should be quashed, and (2) whether the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gandhidham, had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Issue 1: Quashing of Complaint: The appellant company's chairman filed a complaint alleging cheating against another company and its directors. The High Court quashed the complaint based on the contention that the dispute was of a civil nature and should be resolved through arbitration. However, the Supreme Court held that quashing of a complaint should be limited to extreme exceptions and that the offense of cheating could not be eluded from a commercial transaction. The Court emphasized that arbitration is a remedy for breach of agreement and cannot substitute a criminal prosecution for an offense. The investigating agency should have the freedom to investigate the allegations thoroughly before quashing a complaint. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate: The High Court also quashed the complaint on the grounds that the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gandhidham, lacked jurisdiction as the transaction did not take place within the territories of Gujarat. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the power to take cognizance of an offense is not impaired by territorial restrictions for a Magistrate of the First Class. The jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only during the question of enquiry or trial, not at the stage of taking cognizance. The High Court's decision on jurisdiction was deemed premature and erroneous. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and directed that if any of the respondents were arrested, they should be released on bail. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that quashing a complaint should be limited to extreme cases and that territorial restrictions do not impair a Magistrate of the First Class's power to take cognizance of an offense. The Court directed that if any respondent was arrested, they should be released on bail.
|
