AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of criminal
proceedings registered against him for commission of offence
punishable under Section 420, 467, 471 / 34 of IPC.
Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC alleging that the
petitioner had assured the respondent that he would help him to secure
loan under General Credit Card from the Bank. The petitioner had
taken an amount of Rs.3,000/- from him for aforesaid purpose. The
loan was not given to the respondent.
On 15.5.2008, respondent received an information from the
Manager of the Bank that in his name an amount of Rs.25,000/- was
sanctioned as loan under General Credit Card. Aforesaid amount was
also received by some person in the name of the respondent.
Respondent further pleaded that the petitioner accepted that he
had signed the documents and he had withdrawn the amount of loan
from the account of the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent had given a cheque of Rs.84,000/- to the petitioner. It was presented
before the Bank and it was dishonoured.
The pleadings of respondent No.1 are that the petitioner had
taken him in good faith and obtained signatures on certain papers. The
loan was taken in the name of the respondent. However, he did not
receive any money.
The Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Rajagopal Vs. Devi
Polymers Private Limited reported in (2016) 6 SCC 310 has held as
under in regard to exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for
quashment of FIR.
"14. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors .
reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this Court laid down the
following guidelines where the power under Section 482 should
be exercised. They are:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the 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 concerned Act (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 the concerned Act, 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 a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
We find that the High Court ought to have exercised its power under Clause (1), (3) and (5) of the above said judgment.
In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors ., reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692, this Court observed as follows:-
"7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
This Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors ., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as follows:-
"132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles." We reiterate the same caution having found that this is an appropriate case for the exercise of such powers.
The entire law on the subjects was reviewed by a three Judges Bench of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors ., reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 vide paragraphs 23 to 39. Thereafter, the law was reiterated in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Ors . reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516 vide paragraphs 15 and 16.
In all the cases the principle that the accused must be
relieved from the prosecution, even if the allegations are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
constitute any offence has been upheld, and thereafter in Umesh
Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr., reported in (2013)
10 SCC 591.
Criminal proceedings can be quashed if after perusal of FIR or
evidence on record, no case is made out. In the present case, the facts
are disputed. Hence, in my opinion, no case is made out for
interference. However, petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
points/objections before the trial court at the time of framing of
charges and trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.
This petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.