9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the amount outstanding towards M/s. Hariyali Khad Beej Agency was reflected in the ledger for the period from 01.04.2015 to 17.07.2015. The amount was outstanding against the complainant in connection with the goods supplied to the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the post dated cheques for the period were issued on 13.08.2017. The said three cheques bearing No.439033, 439034 and 439035 were submitted on the concerned Bank on 23.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and 24.11.2015 respectively, which were returned by the Bank on 24.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and 25.11.2015 respectively. 5. The legal notice dated 09.12.2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon the complainant on 15.12.2015. On 21.12.2015, a letter was sent by the complainant, denying the outstanding amount of the cheques, and thereafter, the cases were filed on 25.01.2016 bearing Cases No.71/2016, 72/2016 and 73/2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the aforesaid three dishonoured cheques. 6. After filing of the cases on 25.01.2016, as aforesaid, the present FIR was lodged by the complainant on 01.03.2016 as a counter-blast. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tep four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." 8. In Rishipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. : (2014) 7 SC 215, explaining the law in the similar circumstances, as in the present case, this Court observed, in paragraph 17, as under: "It is no doubt true that the courts have to be very careful while exercising the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r made a complaint. However, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that at the first instance, when the cheques were produced before the Bank on 29.03.2017, the complainant immediately filed the complaint on 30.03.2017, which means that even the requisite time for ascertaining the theft or the details of the cheques was not available with the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that it is a clear case of counterblast and to escape the liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the FIR has been lodged, as the complainant was very well aware that those cheques were with the present petitioner and they shall have to face the liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2017 Law Suit (SC) 313, wherein the criminal proceeding, on being found as a counterblast to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had been quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The relevant paras 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the said judgment read as under:- "36. Writ petition was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, that the material relied upon by the Accused has not been refuted by the complainant/prosecutrix. Even in the charge sheet dated 28.6.2007, (extracted above) the investigating officer has acknowledged, that he could not find any proof to substantiate the charges. The charge-sheet had been filed only on the basis of the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix Under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 25. Based on the holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances summarized in the foregoing two paragraphs; we are satisfied, that all the steps delineated by this Court in Rajiv Thapar's case (supra) stand-satisfied. All the steps can only be answered in the affirmative. We therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in concluding, that judicial conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it, on the basis of the material available before it, while passing the impugned order, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused- Appellant, in exercise of the inherent powers vested with it Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the first infor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the theft in this case was committed by the present petitioner and there is no delay in lodging the FIR, because as soon as the SMS regarding the cheques in concern was received by the complainant on 29.03.2017, the complaint was lodged on 30.03.2017. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the quick action of the respondent shows that in fact he was the sufferer of the theft of the cheques at the hands of the present petitioner, who made use of the transition period in the shop of the complainant and stole the cheques, on the pretext of accounting for the transactions between the parties in the shop. 9. 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. 10. It is clear that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon the complainant on 15.12.2015 and a letter was sent by the complainant on 21.12.2015, as a counterblast, the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant on 01.03.2016 levelling allegations against the petitioners, which clearly are nothing but an effort of the complainant to escape the liability arising out of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. The presumption clause of the Negotiable Instruments Act is absolute and has been discussed in the precedent law cited above, and thus, allowing the complainant to carry on with such malicious criminal proceedings in response to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor has shown the case diary, and the case diary does not reflect any answer to the counterblast criminal proceedings, as it is reflected by the documents that the cheques were actually issued by the complainant, and even if some kind of dispute regarding the multiple Firms, or the words 'Private Limited' is there, the same can be a good defence for the complainant at the time of contesting the proceedings under Section 138 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
