Rajesh Narayana vs T. Mosai Valsalam

S. Vaidyanathan, J.—This petition is filed praying to quash the complaint and all further proceedings pending as C.C.No. 353 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Kuzhithurai.

The case of the petitioners is that the complainant did not show that there was fraudulence and dishonour of the cheque on the part of the petitioners, but there was only a cheque bounce issue involved. The Magistrate, on receiving the complaint, has examined the complainant and taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The grievance of the petitioners is that without conducting enquiry, summons have been issued to the accused under sections 204 of Cr.P.C.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent.

In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has made it clear that 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 to 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.

Inasmuch as the petitioner would not fall in any one of the categories as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this Criminal Original Petition is to be dismissed. Since disputed question of fact is involved, the Magistrate will have come to the conclusion whether prima facie case has been established, after let in evidence by the parties,

When the matter was posted on earlier occasion, the petitioner was absent. Hence, the matter was directed to be posted today under the caption ''''for dismissal''. Even today, the petitioner is absent, even though this Court could have dismissed the matter for default, has decided to render finding on the merits of the matter.

Taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, there is no justification to quash the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.