TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of documents annexed with the memo of appeal. Such materials can be produced by the Appellants in their defence in accordance with law for due consideration at appropriate stage. On considering the facts of the present case it is found that the facts were properly noticed by the High Court on earlier occasion while examining the petition preferred by the Appellants for quashing of FIR of this case. The same view has been reiterated by the High Court in the order under appeal for not interfering with the order of cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Hence, there are no good ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings against the Appellants at this stage. Appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No. 1297 of 2004 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmant into confidence, entered into an agreement for transfer of management, assets and liabilities of M/s. R.P. Taxfab Limited in favour of accused Satish Singhla and two others who became the new Directors. The management of the Company was transferred on 24.02.1998 and on 27.02.1998 the informant was called by the Appellants and told that the outstanding amount payable by the Appellants shall be paid by the new Directors. The informant did not agree to this. On next date, the Appellants through a demand draft for ₹ 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs) and returned cotton yarn worth ₹ 13,26,560/- settled the dues in part and for the remaining dues they persuaded the informant to accept four post-dated cheques issued by the new Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998. The complaint filed against the Appellants under the Negotiable Instruments Act stands quashed by the High Court on the basis that they had not issued the cheques in question. The Appellants' earlier petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR vide Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 466 of 1998 was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 12.02.1999 which is reported in 1999 Cri LJ 1849 (Vijayander Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.). A perusal of that judgment discloses that the High Court considered in detail the averments and allegations in the FIR and came to the conclusion that in view of allegations and attending circumstances, at that stage it was not possible to hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al offence. 8. On behalf of the Appellants reliance has been placed upon judgments of this Court in the case of Thermax Limited and Ors. v. K.M. Johny and Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 412 and in case of Dalip Kaur and Ors. v. Jagnar Singh and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 696. There can be no dispute with the legal proposition laid down in the case of Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Limited (2005) 10 SCC 228 which has been discussed in paragraph 31 in the case of Thermox Limited (supra) that if the complaint discloses only a simple case of civil dispute between the parties and there is an absolute absence of requisite averment to make out a case of cheating, the criminal proceeding can be quashed. Similar is the law noticed in the case of Dalip Kaur (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants also placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of Devendra and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2009) 7 SCC 495, only to highlight that a second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be entertained because order of Magistrate taking cognizance gives rise to a new cause of action. This issue does not require any deliberation because learned senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, the informant, has not raised any objection to the maintainability of petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Contra the submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that there is no merit in the contention advanced on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka and Anr. v. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited (2009) 11 SCC 529. 13. On considering the facts of the present case it is found that the facts were properly noticed by the High Court on earlier occasion while examining the petition preferred by the Appellants for quashing of FIR of this case. The same view has been reiterated by the High Court in the order under appeal for not interfering with the order of cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Hence, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings against the Appellants at this stage. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. 14. It is, however, made clear that observations in this order or in the order under appeal are only for deciding the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
