advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Quashing of private complaint under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC. - stop the payment of cheques as those are stolen- but Bank Manger received the cheque without intimation - the complainant received cheque bounce notices - High court dismissed the petition under sec.482 - Apex court held that It is no doubt true that the Courts have to be very careful while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 be interdicted at the threshold. A clear reading of the complaint does not make out any offence against the appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. We are of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit. It all amounts to negligence in discharging official work at the maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty.In view of our above discussion, we have come to an irresistible conclusion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. is a pure abuse of process of law and the complaint case deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court by quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant in C.C. No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379, 411, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.= RISHIPAL SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41732

  Quashing of private complaint under Sections  34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458  and  477  IPC. - stop the payment of cheques as those are stolen- but Bank Manger received the cheque without intimation - the complainant received cheque bounce notices -  High court dismissed the petition under sec.482 - Apex court held that  It is no doubt true that the Courts have  to  be  very  careful  while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  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 be  interdicted  at  the  threshold.   A  clear reading of  the  complaint  does  not  make  out  any  offence  against  the appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections  34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C.  We are of  the  view  that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions  in  the complaint  in  letter  and  spirit.   It  all  amounts  to   negligence   in discharging official work  at  the  maximum  it  can  be  said  that  it  is dereliction of duty.In view of our above discussion,  we  have  come  to  an irresistible conclusion  that  continuation  of  the  criminal  proceedings  against  the appellant for commission of the alleged  offence  under  Sections  34,  379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. is a pure abuse  of  process  of law and the complaint case  deserves  to  be  quashed  in  the  interest  of justice.We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the  impugned  judgment of the High Court by quashing the criminal proceedings pending  against  the appellant in C.C. No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379,  411,  418,  420, 467,  458  and  477  I.P.C.  on  the  file  of  Additional  Chief   Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.=


The facts relevant for the disposal of this  appeal,  in  a  nutshell,
are that on 21st  March,  2005,  respondent  No.2  herein  filed  a  private
complaint (Annexure P/2) in the Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,  Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant herein  and
three other accused who are not parties before  us,  invoking  Sections  34,
379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458  and  477  IPC.   =

The main allegation levelled against the appellant  was  that  when  a
written information had  already  been  given  on  17th  May,  2004  to  the
appellant who was the Branch Manager of the Bank  not  to  honour  the  lost
cheques and cancel them, he should have performed  his  duties  with  utmost
responsibility and when the stolen/lost  cheque  was  presented,  he  should
have given the information of its presentation to the police as well  as  to
the complainant.  On the contrary, the appellant  neither  handed  over  the
person who presented the cheque, to the police, nor brought  to  the  notice
of  the  complainant  about  its  presentation.   It  is  because   of   the
involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy he  has  not  discharged  his
duties  as  Branch  Manager  with  responsibility  and  acted  against   the
instructions in  the  letter  dated  17th  May,  2004  only  to  harass  the
complainant and his family financially and  mentally.   Thus  the  appellant
played a role in the conspiracy, and therefore, the complainant  lodged  the
complaint under the aforesaid sections of IPC against the appellant as  well
as other accused.=

  The  facts  of  the  case  which  are  not  in  dispute,  for  better
appreciation  of  the  facts  and  arguments  advanced  on  behalf  of   the
appellant, it is necessary for us to have a  thorough  look  at  the  letter
dated  17th  May,  2004  addressed  to  the  appellant/Branch   Manager   by
respondent No.2.

“Sir,

It is requested that the Applicant has issued  Cheque  Book  in  which  from
Cheque No. 083691 to 083700 were 10 cheques in  Account  No.  1132,  out  of
which, payment up to Cheque No. 083696 has been received and on rest of  the
cheques are signature of the applicant/account  holder.   The  above  cheque
book and other necessary payers were in my  hand  bag  and  I  by  Bus  from
Pikhuwa was coming to Ghaziabad then in the bust itself by mistake that  bag
was  left  and  even  on  making  to  much  search  could  not  found.   Its
information immediately I have given at the police station, Sihani Gate.

Therefore, it  is  requested  that  you  may  treat  the  above  cheques  as
cancelled and on that may not kindly make payment to any person.

It will be very kind of you”.

       A  reading  of  the  above  letter  makes  it  very  clear  that  the
complainant has instructed the appellant/Branch Manager not to pass  cheques
bearing Nos. 083697 to 083700, the four cheques which were  already  signed.
There  is  no  dispute  that  after  submitting  the  above  letter  to  the
appellant, when Cheque No. 083697 was presented in the Bank on 2ndf  August,
2004, the same was not cleared by the appellant/Branch Manager  in  view  of
the letter of the complainant.  Subsequently, the appellant was  transferred
from that Branch to Dhaulana Branch on 21st  August,  2004,  there  was  any
instruction to the Bank to inform the account  holder  or  police  when  the
cheque is presented.  It appears from the letter that  only  a  request  was
made to the Bank that the said four cheques shall not be honoured.
15.   If we look at the complaint and letter addressed  by  the  complainant
to the Branch Manager, the entire grievance of the complaint appears  to  be
that basing  on  the  written  information  which  had  been  given  to  the
appellant on 17th May, 2004,  when  the  stolen  cheque  was  presented,  he
should have given a complaint to the  police.   As  the  appellant  has  not
chosen to give the complaint to the police,  according  to  the  complainant
the other accused hatched a conspiracy with the appellant –  Branch  Manager
and accordingly cheated him.
16.   It is no doubt true that the Courts have  to  be  very  careful  while
exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  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 be  interdicted  at  the  threshold.   A  clear
reading of  the  complaint  does  not  make  out  any  offence  against  the
appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections  34,
379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C.  We are of  the  view  that
even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions  in  the
complaint  in  letter  and  spirit.   It  all  amounts  to   negligence   in
discharging official work  at  the  maximum  it  can  be  said  that  it  is
dereliction of duty.
17.   In view of our above discussion,  we  have  come  to  an  irresistible
conclusion  that  continuation  of  the  criminal  proceedings  against  the
appellant for commission of the alleged  offence  under  Sections  34,  379,
411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. is a pure abuse  of  process  of
law and the complaint case  deserves  to  be  quashed  in  the  interest  of
justice.
18.   We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the  impugned  judgment
of the High Court by quashing the criminal proceedings pending  against  the
appellant in C.C. No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379,  411,  418,  420,
467,  458  and  477  I.P.C.  on  the  file  of  Additional  Chief   Judicial
Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41732


                                                              REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1300 OF 2014
                               ARISING OUT OF
                SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 2447 OF 2013


RISHIPAL SINGH                          …    APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                    …    RESPONDENTS


                                  JUDGMENT


N.V. RAMANA. J.



      Leave granted.
2.    This appeal arises out of order dated 6th November, 2012 of  the  High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad refusing the prayer of  the  appellant  for
quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2397 of 2012  under  Sections
34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 457, 458 and 477 IPC pending  on  the  file  of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
3.    The facts relevant for the disposal of this  appeal,  in  a  nutshell,
are that on 21st  March,  2005,  respondent  No.2  herein  filed  a  private
complaint (Annexure P/2) in the Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,  Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant herein  and
three other accused who are not parties before  us,  invoking  Sections  34,
379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458  and  477  IPC.   According  to  the  said
complaint, the complainant was holding  a  Bank  Account  in  the  Ghaziabad
District Co-operative Bank, Maliwada, Ghaziabad where the appellant was  the
Branch Manager.  It was alleged in the complaint that  taking  advantage  of
the  innocence  of  the  complainant   and   his   brother,   the   accused,
mischievously obtained their  signatures  on  blank  cheques  and  committed
theft of their hand bag in which the signed  cheque  book  was  kept.   When
they came to know that their bag containing signed cheques and other  papers
was missing, not knowing the misdeed of  the  accused,  a  search  has  been
undertaken for the lost bag containing signed  cheques  and  also  lodged  a
written report on 17th May, 2004 at  Sihani  Gate  Police  Station  to  that
effect.  The Bank was also informed in writing  on  17th  May,  2004  itself
that duly signed cheque book of Account No. 1132 has  been  lost,  hence  no
payment on the lost cheques be made to any person and all those cheques  may
be cancelled (Annexure P/1).  It was further stated by the complainant  that
when he received a notice dated 6th October, 2004 under Section 138  of  the
Negotiable Instruments Act from Neelam Rani (co-accused,  not  party  before
us)  stating  that  Cheque  No.083697  (one  of  the   lose   cheques)   for
Rs.5,00,067/- as if issued by him towards the purchase of Kachi  bricks  and
coal from “Neelam Brick  Field”,  then  he  realized  that  there  was  some
planned conspiracy and the cheque book was not actually lost but was  stolen
and being misused by the accused for drawing various amounts from  his  bank
account.  In the said complaint, the  complainant  –  respondent  No.2,  has
totally denied any such transaction with “Neelam Brick  Field”  and  alleged
that the accused cooked up that transaction, hatched a conspiracy  with  the
bank employees for cheating him, and accordingly  all  the  amounts  of  the
complainant and his family have been “looted”.
4.    The main allegation levelled against the appellant  was  that  when  a
written information had  already  been  given  on  17th  May,  2004  to  the
appellant who was the Branch Manager of the Bank  not  to  honour  the  lost
cheques and cancel them, he should have performed  his  duties  with  utmost
responsibility and when the stolen/lost  cheque  was  presented,  he  should
have given the information of its presentation to the police as well  as  to
the complainant.  On the contrary, the appellant  neither  handed  over  the
person who presented the cheque, to the police, nor brought  to  the  notice
of  the  complainant  about  its  presentation.   It  is  because   of   the
involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy he  has  not  discharged  his
duties  as  Branch  Manager  with  responsibility  and  acted  against   the
instructions in  the  letter  dated  17th  May,  2004  only  to  harass  the
complainant and his family financially and  mentally.   Thus  the  appellant
played a role in the conspiracy, and therefore, the complainant  lodged  the
complaint under the aforesaid sections of IPC against the appellant as  well
as other accused.
5.    After registering the Complaint Case, the learned Magistrate  recorded
statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.  and  issued  summons  against
the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C.  Two other co-accused  challenged  the
summoning  order  before  the  High  Court  in  a   Criminal   Miscellaneous
Application No. 6334 of  2006  and  the  Allahabad  High  Court  has  stayed
further proceedings in the Complaint Case.   Subsequently,  the  High  Court
dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application,  and  hence,  non-bailable
warrant has been issued against the appellant on 3rd October, 2012.
6.    Then the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482  Cr.P.C.  to
quash the proceedings against him.  It was the case of  the  appellant  that
he came to know about the criminal  complaint  only  when  the  non-bailable
warrant has been issued against him because  from  August  2004  to  January
2007, during which period the proceedings in  the  criminal  complaint  were
going on, he was posted at Dhaulana  Branch,  therefore,  the  summons  were
never served upon him.  But, by the impugned order dated 6th November,  2012
the High Court  refused  to  quash  the  criminal  proceedings  against  the
appellant.
7.    Before us, the main contention of the learned senior counsel  for  the
appellant is that the appellant has nothing to do with the  alleged  offence
and his name was unnecessarily dragged into the  criminal  complaint.   When
Cheque No. 083697 was presented in the Bank on 2nd August, 2004, it was  not
cleared by the Bank  in  view  of  the  written  instruction  given  by  the
complainant and no loss was caused to the complainant at the  hands  of  the
appellant.  Afterwards, the appellant was transferred from  Maliwara  Branch
to Dhaulana Branch on 21st August, 2004 and  he  was  again  transferred  to
Maliwara Branch in January 2007 where he  remained  till  August  2011.   He
further contended that the complainant in his letter dated  17th  May,  2004
(Annexure P/1) addressed to the appellant has nowhere asked  him  to  inform
to the police or to give communication to him when the cheque is  presented.
 The entire reading of the said letter does not disclose  any  case  against
the appellant and his name was included into the criminal complaint only  to
malign and defame him because the  complainant  has  received  some  notices
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from the other  accused.
 Only  to  create  a  defence  against  those  cases  under  the  Negotiable
Instruments Act, the complaint has been filed by the complainant  with  mala
fide  intention.   Hence,  the  complaint  filed  by  respondent   No.2   is
misconceived and it does not attract any of  the  offences  alleged  against
the appellant as it was filed only with vexatious and oblique  motive.   But
the High Court, without going into the merits and facts of the case,  merely
relying on the provisions of Section 245 Cr.P.C. directed the  appellant  to
file application for his discharge before the trial  Court.   This  approach
of the High Court is erroneous and contrary to the law  laid  down  by  this
Court.  The High  Court  ought  to  have  allowed  the  application  of  the
appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the complaint does  not  attract  the
ingredients of Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 467, 468, 471 and  477  IPC.
He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order  passed  by  the  High
Court and quash the proceedings in the Complaint Case qua the appellant.
8.     On   the   other   hand,   the   learned   counsel   for   respondent
No.2/complainant while  supporting  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court
submitted   that   the   appellant   has   not   properly   discharged   his
responsibilities as Branch Manager and acted  in  a  casual  manner  due  to
which respondent No.2 had to suffer financial loss as well as put to lot  of
hardship.  Particularly, he contended that in the light of the letter  dated
17th May, 2004 when a lost/stolen cheque was presented for clearance, it  is
expected from a responsible officer of the Bank that instead of passing  the
cheque  for  payment,  he  should  inform  the  account  holder  about   its
presentation and also to bring to  the  notice  of  police  such  mala  fide
presentation of cheque by the  presenter,  but  the  appellant  has  totally
failed in performing his duties.  So, therefore is no reason for this  Court
to interfere with the order of the High Court.
9.    Having heard the learned counsel for the parties  and  after  perusing
the entire material available on record, including the  complaint,  now  the
issue for consideration before us is whether in  the  light  of  the  letter
dated 17th May, 2004 (Annexure P/1), the appellant has made out any case  to
quash the proceedings in Complaint Case No.  2397/2002  under  Sections  34,
379, 411, 417, 418, 467, 468, 471 and 477 IPC on the file of the  Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
10.   Before we deal with the  respective  contentions  advanced  on  either
side, we deem it appropriate to have thorough look at Section  482  Cr.P.C.,
which reads:
            “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to  limit  or  affect  the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as  may  be  necessary
to give effect to any orders of this Code or to prevent abuse of process  of
any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”.

      A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear that  the
object of exercise of power under  this  section  is  to  prevent  abuse  of
process of Court and to secure ends of justice.  There are no hard and  fast
rules  that  can  be  laid  down  for  the  exercise  of  the  extraordinary
jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but  not  a  rule  of
law.  It is no doubt true that there can be no straight jacket  formula  nor
defined parameters to enable a Court to  invoke  or  exercise  its  inherent
powers.  It will always depend upon the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each
case.  The Courts have to be very circumspect while exercising  jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11.   This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v Biological  E.  Ltd
and Others 2000 (3) SCC 269, has discussed at length  about  the  scope  and
ambit while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and how cautious  and
careful the approach of the Courts should be.  We deem  it  apt  to  extract
the relevant portion from that judgement, which reads:
            “Exercise of jurisdiction under inherent power as  envisaged  in
Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the  charge  sheet  quashed
is an exception rather than rule and the case for quashing  at  the  initial
stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as  not  to  scuttle  the
prosecution with the lodgement of First Information  Report.   The  ball  is
set to  roll  and  thenceforth  the  law  takes  it’s  own  course  and  the
investigation ensures  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  law.   The
jurisdiction as such  is  rather  limited  and  restricted  and  it’s  undue
expansion is neither practicable nor warranted.  In the event, however,  the
Court on a  perusal  of  the  complaint  comes  to  a  conclusion  that  the
allegations levelled in the complaint or charge sheet  on  the  fact  of  it
does not constitute or disclose any offence alleged, there ought not  to  be
any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the  people  and  deal  with
the situations as is required under the  law.   Frustrated  litigants  ought
not to be indulged to give vent to  their  vindictiveness  through  a  legal
process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed  to  be  continued
since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount”.

12.   This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines  with
regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts under Section  482  Cr.P.C.
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992  Supp(1)  SCC  335,  this  Court  has
listed the categories of cases when the  power  under  Section  482  can  be
exercised by the Court.  These principles or the guidelines were  reiterated
by this Court in  (1)  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation  v.  Duncans  Agro
Industries Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 592; (2) Rajesh Bajaj v.  State  NCT  of  Delhi
1999 (3) SCC  259  and;  (3)  Zandu  Pharmaceuticals  Works  Ltd.  v.  Mohd.
Sharaful Haque & Anr (2005) 1 SCC 122.  This Court in Zandu  Pharmaceuticals
Ltd., observed that:
            “The power  under  Section  482  of  the  Code  should  be  used
sparingly and with to prevent abuse of process of Court, but not  to  stifle
legitimate prosecution.  There can be no two opinions on  this,  but  if  it
appears to the trained judicial mind  that  continuation  of  a  prosecution
would lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under Section 482 of  the
Code must be exercised and  proceedings  must  be  quashed”.   Also  see  Om
Prakash and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand 3012 (12) SCC 72.

What emerges from the above judgments is that  when  a  prosecution  at  the
initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied by  the  Court
is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as  made  in  the  complaint
prima facie establish  the  case.   The  Courts  have  to  see  whether  the
continuation of the complaint  amounts  to  abuse  of  process  of  law  and
whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results  in  miscarriage  of
justice or when  the  Court  comes  to  a  conclusion  that  quashing  these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then  the  Court  can
exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.   While  exercising  the  power
under the provision, the Courts have to  only  look  at  the  uncontroverted
allegation in the complaint whether prima  facie  discloses  an  offence  or
not, but it should not convert itself to that of a  trial  Court  and  dwell
into the disputed questions of fact.
13.   In the backdrop of the legal position,  well  settled  by  this  Court
through catena of judgements, we would like to deal with the  facts  of  the
present case which lead to filing  of  the  present  complaint  against  the
appellant under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417,  418,  420,  467,  458  and  477
I.P.C. on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
14.    The  facts  of  the  case  which  are  not  in  dispute,  for  better
appreciation  of  the  facts  and  arguments  advanced  on  behalf  of   the
appellant, it is necessary for us to have a  thorough  look  at  the  letter
dated  17th  May,  2004  addressed  to  the  appellant/Branch   Manager   by
respondent No.2.

“Sir,

It is requested that the Applicant has issued  Cheque  Book  in  which  from
Cheque No. 083691 to 083700 were 10 cheques in  Account  No.  1132,  out  of
which, payment up to Cheque No. 083696 has been received and on rest of  the
cheques are signature of the applicant/account  holder.   The  above  cheque
book and other necessary payers were in my  hand  bag  and  I  by  Bus  from
Pikhuwa was coming to Ghaziabad then in the bust itself by mistake that  bag
was  left  and  even  on  making  to  much  search  could  not  found.   Its
information immediately I have given at the police station, Sihani Gate.

Therefore, it  is  requested  that  you  may  treat  the  above  cheques  as
cancelled and on that may not kindly make payment to any person.

It will be very kind of you”.

       A  reading  of  the  above  letter  makes  it  very  clear  that  the
complainant has instructed the appellant/Branch Manager not to pass  cheques
bearing Nos. 083697 to 083700, the four cheques which were  already  signed.
There  is  no  dispute  that  after  submitting  the  above  letter  to  the
appellant, when Cheque No. 083697 was presented in the Bank on 2ndf  August,
2004, the same was not cleared by the appellant/Branch Manager  in  view  of
the letter of the complainant.  Subsequently, the appellant was  transferred
from that Branch to Dhaulana Branch on 21st  August,  2004,  there  was  any
instruction to the Bank to inform the account  holder  or  police  when  the
cheque is presented.  It appears from the letter that  only  a  request  was
made to the Bank that the said four cheques shall not be honoured.
15.   If we look at the complaint and letter addressed  by  the  complainant
to the Branch Manager, the entire grievance of the complaint appears  to  be
that basing  on  the  written  information  which  had  been  given  to  the
appellant on 17th May, 2004,  when  the  stolen  cheque  was  presented,  he
should have given a complaint to the  police.   As  the  appellant  has  not
chosen to give the complaint to the police,  according  to  the  complainant
the other accused hatched a conspiracy with the appellant –  Branch  Manager
and accordingly cheated him.
16.   It is no doubt true that the Courts have  to  be  very  careful  while
exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  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 be  interdicted  at  the  threshold.   A  clear
reading of  the  complaint  does  not  make  out  any  offence  against  the
appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections  34,
379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C.  We are of  the  view  that
even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions  in  the
complaint  in  letter  and  spirit.   It  all  amounts  to   negligence   in
discharging official work  at  the  maximum  it  can  be  said  that  it  is
dereliction of duty.
17.   In view of our above discussion,  we  have  come  to  an  irresistible
conclusion  that  continuation  of  the  criminal  proceedings  against  the
appellant for commission of the alleged  offence  under  Sections  34,  379,
411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. is a pure abuse  of  process  of
law and the complaint case  deserves  to  be  quashed  in  the  interest  of
justice.
18.   We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the  impugned  judgment
of the High Court by quashing the criminal proceedings pending  against  the
appellant in C.C. No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379,  411,  418,  420,
467,  458  and  477  I.P.C.  on  the  file  of  Additional  Chief   Judicial
Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

                                                           ….……………………………….J.
                                                     (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)



                                                         .....………………………………J.
                                   (N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI
JULY  2 , 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.