M/s. Vimal Selections and Others vs Cotton County Retail Ltd.

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have sough quashing of criminal complaint No. 188 dated 23.5.2009 titled as ''Cotton Country vs. M/s. Vimal Selections and others'' (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 16.7.2010 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 19.4.2012 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are residents of Hyderabad. Petitioners had not received any summons from the Court qua pendency of the complaint in question against them with regard to the cheque in question in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Complaint in question was lodged at Ludhiana and petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders vide order dated 23.5.2001, although, petitioners had not received any summons from the Court. On 4.10.2011, Inspector Manjinder Singh from Ludhiana along with local police of Hyderabad came to arrest petitioners No. 2 and 3 in connection with the complaint in question. The police officials were accompanied by Arvinder Singh Sodhi, Manager Liaison, authorised person on behalf of the complainant. In order to avoid their arrest, petitioners No. 2 and 3 immediately handed over the cheque amount in question to the authorised representative of the complainant. The said amount was duly entered in the accounts of the complainant. In this regard, Arvinder Singh Sodhi had executed cash receipt (Annexure P-5) and had also given an undertaking (Annexure P-6) that the amount had been received towards full and final settlement of the complaint case. Despite the said fact, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were still continuing. Since the amount in question has already been paid by the petitioners to the complainant, the complaint in question was liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while opposing the petition, has submitted that Arvinder Singh Sodhi, Manager Liaison was not authorised to give an undertaking. The amount paid by the petitioners was towards other outstanding amount and not qua the cheque in question.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the Apex Court has held as under:-

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr. P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court 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 chennelised 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 complainant/respondent No. 2, 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 u/s 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 no 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 Magistrate as contemplated u/s 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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 also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

In the present case, respondent filed a complaint (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners with regard to the dishonour of cheque in question in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Admittedly, on 4.10.2011, police officials in pursuance to the warrants of arrest issued against petitioners No. 2 and 3, reached Hyderabad to arrest them. Police officials were admittedly accompanied by Arvinder Singh Sodhi, Manager Liaison of M/s. Nahar Retail Ltd.

Annexure P-5 reads as under:-

Arvinder Singh, Manager Liaison of M/s. Nahar Retail Ltd., presently known as ''Cotton County'' office situated at Ludhiana, Punjab State have received as sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) from M/s. Vimal Selection, Kukkatpalli, Hyderabad under protest in CC No. 189/09 on the file of Vipindeep Kaur JMIC Ludhiana filed u/s 138 of N.I. Act for dishonour of two cheques bearing No. 447703 and 447704 for Rs. 5,00,000/- each, towards full and final settlement of the case and agreed to withdraw the above case.

Annexure P-6, undertaking letter given by Arvinder Singh, Manager Liaison, reads as under:-

I, Arvinder Singh, Manager Liaison of M/s. Nahar Retail Ltd., presently known as ''Cotton County'' office situated at Ludhiana, Punjab State hereby undertake that I have received cash Rs. 10,00,000/- from M/s. Vimal Selections, Rep. byits Propritirix Mrs. Vimala, today. Due to banks holiday I will keep the same with me and tomorrow morning i.e. 5.10.2011, I will hand over the same to her for depositing the same in Bank through RTGS. Transfer to Cotton County Retail Ltd. Ludhiana. The above said amount was received by me today towards full and final settlement of case No. 189/09.

Thus, Arvinder Singh, who had accompanied the police officials, on behalf of the complainant, had received the cheque amount in question and had issued receipt in this regard. He had also given an undertaking that the cash amount would be deposited in the account of the respondent. Admittedly, the amount has been deposited in the account of the complainant. The plea taken by the complainant that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners was towards some other outstanding amount is without any force in view of Annexures P-5 and P-6. Arvinder Singh had admittedly gone with the police officials on behalf of the complainant and had received the cheque amount in question and due to this reason, petitioners No. 2 and 3 were not arrested. Although the cheque amount in question had been immediately paid by the petitioners on coming to know about the pendency of the complaint against them, the complaint in question was not withdrawn by the respondent.

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No. 188 dated 23.5.2009 titled as ''Cotton Country vs. M/s. Vimal Selections and others'' (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 16.7.2010 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 19.4.2012 (Annexure P-3) are quashed.