Manoj Godha vs Vijay Shourie

R.K.GAUBA, J

On the criminal complaints (CC No.1090/1/2005 and CC No.5123/1/2005) of the respondent alleging offence(s) punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, they having been committed on account of non-payment despite notice of demand served in the wake of dishonor

of the cheque No.320715, dated 12.03.2005 and cheque No.320717 dated 07.04.2005, each for Rs.18,000/-, issued by the petitioner, after preliminary

inquiry he stood summoned as accused by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate.

By the present petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner (accused) seeks quashing of the said

criminal cases, inter alia, on the ground that the criminal action is an abuse of the process of law.

It appears from the pleadings in the criminal complaints and the present petitions as indeed the documents filed therewith, that the petitioner (the

accused) was in occupation and use of certain portion of the property of the respondent (complainant) under a document described as License Deed,

though pleadings also reflecting the relationship between the parties being one of lessee and lessor.

As per the case of the complainant in the criminal cases the cheques were issued towards rental for a certain period. It is the contention of the

petitioner that he had vacated the premises in question prior to the date of the said cheuqes, there being no liability due on such account, the cheques

having been issued as security should have been returned, their presentation leading to the prosecution being with intent to cause harassment. It is also

the contention of the petitioner that rather than he owing money to the respondent, he is entitled to recover some amount from him and that, for this,

and also seeking cancellation of the said instruments, he had filed a civil suit which is pending.

In the given facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitions at hand, at their best, give rise to questions of facts. In absence of any

unimpeachable evidence being presented, this court finds that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been wrongly invoked, inasmuch as the

issues raised would require adjudication only after evidence has been led. Â

In above context, the following observations of the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 need to be

borne in mind.

“29. The issue being examined in the instant case is thejurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, ifit chooses to quash the initiation of

the prosecutionagainst an accused at the stage of issuing process, or atthe stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing ofcharges. These are all

stages before the commencementof the actual trial. The same parameters would naturallybe available for later stages as well. The power vested in

the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reachingconsequences inasmuch as it would negate

theprosecution's/complainant's case without allowing theprosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such adetermination must always be rendered with

caution,care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material

produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, andindubitable facts; the

material produced is such as wouldrule out and displace the assertions contained in thecharges levelled against the accused; and the materialproduced

is such as would clearly reject and overrule theveracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It

should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusationslevelled by the prosecution/complainant, without thenecessity of recording any

evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of

sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and

condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Courtwould persuade it to exercise its

power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of

justice.â€​

 (emphasis supplied)

For the above reasons, this court declines to grant the prayers made in the petitions. The petitioner would have the liberty to raise his defences,

including on the lines set out in the petitions at the trial.

The petitions are dismissed.

The pending applications also stand disposed of.