TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the question whether the second complaint by the Respondent should have been entertained when the previous complaint had been withdrawn. The application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and the complaint dismissed by the majority Judges observing that an order of dismissal Under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure was no bar to the entertainment of second complaint on the same facts, but it could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, for example, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or the order passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where there were new facts, which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in previous proceedings. Exercise of the inherent power of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither proper nor permissible for the Court to lay down any straitjacket formula for regulating the inherent power of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered into transactions in 2001. Later, in January 2002, a Memorandum of Understanding in writing was executed between the Appellant and the Mill. 5. The Appellant has alleged that pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the Appellant supplied 1,03,920 Kgs. of cotton lint to the Mill for conversion into yarn. The Appellant has further alleged that Respondent No. 2/Accused No. 2 Shri Chokalingam had, from out of the said quantity of cotton lint, purchased lint weighing about 47,164 Kgs. of the value of ₹ 26,93,289/- on credit basis and the balance which was worth ₹ 35,26,561.69 had been entrusted to the Mill for conversion into yarn. 6. According to the Appellant, the Mill did not take any step to convert the lint into yarn in spite of repeated requests. The Appellant later came to know that all the Accused had connived with each other and in criminal breach of trust sold the entire cotton lint weighing about 1,08,920/- Kgs. of the value of about ₹ 62,19,850.50 and appropriated the sale proceeds thereof. 7. On 20-05-2004, the Appellant lodged a complaint at the Edapadi Police Station, Salem district against Respondents for offences Under Sections 42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Accused persons had forged documents using blank letter head, papers and cheque leaves of the Appellant given to him before entering into business transactions. As such ingredients of Sections 468, 471, 420, 409 and 120 (b) Indian Penal Code were to be found. Furthermore, there was evidence that one of the Accused mentioned in the FIR namely Prasanna Chakravarthy had deposed about the forged letter prepared by him on the instruction of Kasi Viswanathan, Meiyappan, Rajarathinam, and Jayapal. 16. On 18-10-2005, the Appellant, as a de facto complainant, filed an application numbered Crl.M.P. No. 8370 of 2005 for intervention in Crl.O.P. No. 27039/2005. 17. By an order dated 24-11-2005, the High Court granted the police six months' time for completing the investigation in FIR No. 54 of 2005 and for filing final report therein. 18. On 30-11-2005, the High Court referred the matter to the Conciliation and Mediation Centre for resolution of the dispute between the parties, in the absence of the Appellant, being the complainant. 19. The Appellant opposed the conciliation proceedings contending that the offences were non-compoundable whereupon the case was again ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 SC 876, this Court dealt with the question whether the second complaint by the Respondent should have been entertained when the previous complaint had been withdrawn. The application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and the complaint dismissed by the majority Judges observing that an order of dismissal Under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure was no bar to the entertainment of second complaint on the same facts, but it could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, for example, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or the order passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where there were new facts, which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in previous proceedings. 25. In Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. v. Fazru (2010) 2 SCC 631, this Court relied upon its earlier decision in Pramatha Nath (supra) and held that an order of dismissal of a complaint was no bar to the entertainment of second complaint on the same facts, but it could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, such as, where the previous order was passed on incompl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. 34. In Vesa Holding (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court found that there was nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the Accused persons to cheat, which was a condition precedent for an offence Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. The complaint was found not to disclose any criminal offence at all. 35. It is well settled that a judgment is a precedent for the issue of law which is raised and decided. Phrases and sentences in a judgment are to be understood in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case and the same cannot be read in isolation. 36. As observed above, every breach of contract does not give rise to an offence of cheating. The language and tenor of Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. (supra), particularly, the observation that breach of contract would give rise to an offence of cheating only in those cases where there was any deception played at the very inception, is to be understood in the context of the facts of that case and accordingly construed. The phrase in those cases w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
