Vijayander Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 389
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 482 - Quashment - Criminal as well as civil liability - A given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to informant/ complainant that itself cannot be a
ground to quash a criminal proceeding - Real test is whether allegations in complaint disclose a criminal offence or not, (2014) 3 SCC 389-A
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 482 - Quashment - Informant firm was to receive a sum of Rs 47,28,115.80 from appellants - Appellants through a demand draft for Rs 10 lakhs and returned cotton yarn worth Rs 13,26,560 settled the dues in part and for the remaining
dues they persuaded the informant to accept four post-dated cheques issued by new Director SS - When informant presented cheque for a sum of Rs 5 lakhs through his bank, said cheque was dishonoured because accused SS had got
the payment of cheque stopped - Informant alleged that he would not have signed said papers nor received post-dated cheques but for assurances given by appellant-accused persons - That all the accused by mutual consent (conspiracy)
have played a fraud and cheated him by making false statement and holding out false assurances whereby they induced him to sign some papers - Allegedly accused had full knowledge even before issuing cheques that these shall not be
honoured and they had such dishonest intention from the beginning - Police submitted final report to the effect that the case is of civil nature - CJM rejected final report and after hearing parties took cognizance of offence under S. 420 r/w S. 120-B IPC against all accused - Appellants contended that allegations and averments do not make out any criminal offence - Complaint filed against appellants under NI Act stood quashed by High Court on the basis that they had not issued cheques in question - On an earlier occasion High Court declined to interfere with order of CJM taking cognizance of offence under S. 420 r/w S. 120 IPC - Held, facts were properly appreciated by High Court on earlier occasion while examining petition preferred by appellants for quashing of FIR of this case - Same view has been reiterated by High Court - Informant and witnesses have supported allegations made in FIR, and it would not be proper to evaluate merit of allegations on basis of documents annexed with memo of appeal - Such materials can be produced by appellants in their defence in accordance with law for due consideration at appropriate stage - There is no good ground to interfere with criminal proceedings against appellants at this stage, (2014) 3 SCC 389-B
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 482 - Exercise of power by High Court - Scope of - Principles reiterated, (2014) 3 SCC 389-C
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 482 - Maintainability of second petition at different stage of proceedings - First petition under S. 482 CrPC for quashment of FIR dismissed by High Court - Appellants contended that a second petition under S. 482 CrPC can be entertained because, order of Magistrate taking cognizance gives rise to a new cause of action - Informant has not raised any objection to maintainability of petition, therefore, issue does not require any deliberation, (2014) 3 SCC 389-D
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 482 - Quashment - Criminal as well as civil liability - A given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to informant/ complainant that itself cannot be a
ground to quash a criminal proceeding - Real test is whether allegations in complaint disclose a criminal offence or not, (2014) 3 SCC 389-A
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 482 - Quashment - Informant firm was to receive a sum of Rs 47,28,115.80 from appellants - Appellants through a demand draft for Rs 10 lakhs and returned cotton yarn worth Rs 13,26,560 settled the dues in part and for the remaining
dues they persuaded the informant to accept four post-dated cheques issued by new Director SS - When informant presented cheque for a sum of Rs 5 lakhs through his bank, said cheque was dishonoured because accused SS had got
the payment of cheque stopped - Informant alleged that he would not have signed said papers nor received post-dated cheques but for assurances given by appellant-accused persons - That all the accused by mutual consent (conspiracy)
have played a fraud and cheated him by making false statement and holding out false assurances whereby they induced him to sign some papers - Allegedly accused had full knowledge even before issuing cheques that these shall not be
honoured and they had such dishonest intention from the beginning - Police submitted final report to the effect that the case is of civil nature - CJM rejected final report and after hearing parties took cognizance of offence under S. 420 r/w S. 120-B IPC against all accused - Appellants contended that allegations and averments do not make out any criminal offence - Complaint filed against appellants under NI Act stood quashed by High Court on the basis that they had not issued cheques in question - On an earlier occasion High Court declined to interfere with order of CJM taking cognizance of offence under S. 420 r/w S. 120 IPC - Held, facts were properly appreciated by High Court on earlier occasion while examining petition preferred by appellants for quashing of FIR of this case - Same view has been reiterated by High Court - Informant and witnesses have supported allegations made in FIR, and it would not be proper to evaluate merit of allegations on basis of documents annexed with memo of appeal - Such materials can be produced by appellants in their defence in accordance with law for due consideration at appropriate stage - There is no good ground to interfere with criminal proceedings against appellants at this stage, (2014) 3 SCC 389-B
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 482 - Exercise of power by High Court - Scope of - Principles reiterated, (2014) 3 SCC 389-C
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 482 - Maintainability of second petition at different stage of proceedings - First petition under S. 482 CrPC for quashment of FIR dismissed by High Court - Appellants contended that a second petition under S. 482 CrPC can be entertained because, order of Magistrate taking cognizance gives rise to a new cause of action - Informant has not raised any objection to maintainability of petition, therefore, issue does not require any deliberation, (2014) 3 SCC 389-D
Comments
Post a Comment