9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 31 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint would result in miscarriage of justice - powers under Section 561-A Cr.PC. - HELD THAT - The Trial court after having taken cognizance recorded the statement of complainant and issued process against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act as well as offences punishable under Sections 420 323 and 506 RPC. What was required by the respondent to show before the court was that a cheque was issued by petitioner and the same was presented for encashment the cheque was dishonoured and returned on account of insufficient funds or any other reason and notice of demand was made but petitioner failed to pay. The respondent has alleged and shown that the cheque was issued in his favour for payment of Rs. 6.00 lacs and when the said cheque was presented for encashment before the bank within the period of validity of the cheque the bank returned the cheque without making payment on the ground that drawee of the cheque was not having sufficient funds - The respondent has further alleged that in pursuance of demand notice he also demanded the money of cheque from the petitioner but petitioner/accused instead of making payment subjected him to beating thrashing and also threatened him of dire consequences. This act of the petitioner is shown to have been done during the course of the same transaction. The cognizance of offences under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act as well as Sections 420 323 and 506 of Ranbir Penal Code taken by the Trial Court is not bad because in view of provision as contained in Section 227 of the Cr.PC trial of the cases in respect of the offences which have taken place during the course of same prosecution can be held together. The submission of the petitioner that the filing of complaint its continuance and issuance of process amounts to abuse of the process of law is without any basis. Nothing wrong can be found in the order passed by Trial court. The complaint and statements do disclose the commission of offence punishable under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act as well offences punishable under Sections 420 323 and 520 Ranbir Penal Code. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Quashment of Complaint under Sections 420, 323, and 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). 3. Examination of the Trial Court's process issuance. 4. Application of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashment of Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The petitioner sought the quashment of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the allegations were fabricated and lacked essential ingredients. The court noted that the respondent had shown that a cheque was issued by the petitioner, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. A notice of demand was made, but the petitioner failed to pay. These allegations, prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Quashment of Complaint under Sections 420, 323, and 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC): The petitioner also sought quashment of the complaint under Sections 420 (cheating), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the RPC. The court observed that the respondent alleged that after the cheque was dishonored, the petitioner, along with others, beat and threatened him when he demanded payment. These acts were part of the same transaction and thus, the trial court's cognizance of these offences was justified. 3. Examination of the Trial Court's Process Issuance: The trial court had taken cognizance and issued process against the petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 420, 323, and 506 of the RPC. The court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint and the statements recorded prima facie disclosed the commission of these offences. Therefore, the trial court's issuance of process was not found to be erroneous. 4. Application of Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.PC: The court discussed the scope and ambit of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, referencing several Supreme Court judgments. It was emphasized that these powers should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The court found that the petitioner's grounds for quashment did not meet the criteria for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, as the complaint disclosed prima facie offences and was not frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed as it lacked merit. The court held that the complaint and the process issued by the trial court disclosed prima facie offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 420, 323, and 506 of the RPC. The trial court's cognizance of these offences was justified, and there was no basis for quashing the complaint or the process issued. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC were not applicable in this case to quash the proceedings.
|
