A
clear reading of the complaint does not make out any offence against
the appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under
Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. We are
of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated
the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit. It all amounts to
negligence in discharging official work at the maximum it can be said
that it is dereliction of duty.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1300 OF 2014
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 2447 OF 2013
RISHIPAL SINGH
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Citation;AIR2014 SC 2567
N.V. RAMANA. J.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal arises out of order dated 6 th November, 2012 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad refusing the prayer of the
appellant for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2397 of
2012 under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 457, 458 and 477 IPC
pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
3.
The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in a nutshell, are
that on 21st March, 2005, respondent No.2 herein filed a private
complaint (Annexure P/2) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant herein
and three other accused who are not parties before us, invoking
Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC. According
to the said complaint, the complainant was holding a Bank Account in
the Ghaziabad District Co-operative Bank, Maliwada, Ghaziabad where
the appellant was the Branch Manager. It was alleged in the complaint
that taking advantage of the innocence of the complainant and his
brother, the accused, mischievously obtained their signatures on blank
cheques and committed theft of their hand bag in which the signed
cheque book was kept.
When they came to know that their bag
containing signed cheques and other papers was missing, not knowing
the misdeed of the accused, a search has been undertaken for the lost
bag containing signed cheques and also lodged a written report on 17 th
May, 2004 at Sihani Gate Police Station to that effect. The Bank was
also informed in writing on 17th May, 2004 itself that duly signed cheque
book of Account No. 1132 has been lost, hence no payment on the lost
cheques be made to any person and all those cheques may be
cancelled (Annexure P/1). It was further stated by the complainant that
when he received a notice dated 6 th October, 2004 under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act from Neelam Rani (co-accused, not party
before us) stating that Cheque No.083697 (one of the lose cheques) for
Rs.5,00,067/- as if issued by him towards the purchase of Kachi bricks
and coal from “Neelam Brick Field”, then he realized that there was
some planned conspiracy and the cheque book was not actually lost but
was stolen and being misused by the accused for drawing various
amounts from his bank account. In the said complaint, the complainant
– respondent No.2, has totally denied any such transaction with “Neelam
Brick Field” and alleged that the accused cooked up that transaction,
hatched a conspiracy with the bank employees for cheating him, and
accordingly all the amounts of the complainant and his family have been
“looted”.
4.
The main allegation levelled against the appellant was that when a
written information had already been given on 17 th May, 2004 to the
appellant who was the Branch Manager of the Bank not to honour the
lost cheques and cancel them, he should have performed his duties with
utmost responsibility and when the stolen/lost cheque was presented, he
should have given the information of its presentation to the police as well
as to the complainant. On the contrary, the appellant neither handed
over the person who presented the cheque, to the police, nor brought to
the notice of the complainant about its presentation. It is because of the
involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy he has not discharged his
duties as Branch Manager with responsibility and acted against the
instructions in the letter dated 17 th May, 2004 only to harass the
complainant and his family financially and mentally. Thus the appellant
played a role in the conspiracy, and therefore, the complainant lodged
the complaint under the aforesaid sections of IPC against the appellant
as well as other accused.
5.
After registering the Complaint Case, the learned Magistrate
recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and issued
summons against the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Two other co-
accused challenged the summoning order before the High Court in a
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6334 of 2006 and the Allahabad
High Court has stayed further proceedings in the Complaint Case.
Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous
Application, and hence, non-bailable warrant has been issued against
the appellant on 3rd October, 2012.
6.
Then the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against him. It was the case of the
appellant that he came to know about the criminal complaint only when
the non-bailable warrant has been issued against him because from
August 2004 to January 2007, during which period the proceedings in
the criminal complaint were going on, he was posted at Dhaulana
Branch, therefore, the summons were never served upon him. But, by
the impugned order dated 6th November, 2012 the High Court refused to
quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant.
7.
Before us, the main contention of the learned senior counsel for
the appellant is that the appellant has nothing to do with the alleged
offence and his name was unnecessarily dragged into the criminal
complaint. When Cheque No. 083697 was presented in the Bank on 2 nd
August, 2004, it was not cleared by the Bank in view of the written
instruction given by the complainant and no loss was caused to the
complainant at the hands of the appellant. Afterwards, the appellant
was transferred from Maliwara Branch to Dhaulana Branch on 21 st
August, 2004 and he was again transferred to Maliwara Branch in
January 2007 where he remained till August 2011. He further contended
that the complainant in his letter dated 17 th May, 2004 (Annexure P/1)
addressed to the appellant has nowhere asked him to inform to the
police or to give communication to him when the cheque is presented.
The entire reading of the said letter does not disclose any case against
the appellant and his name was included into the criminal complaint only
to malign and defame him because the complainant has received some
notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from the
other accused. Only to create a defence against those cases under the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint has been filed by the
complainant with mala fide intention.
Hence, the complaint filed by
respondent No.2 is misconceived and it does not attract any of the
offences alleged against the appellant as it was filed only with vexatious
and oblique motive. But the High Court, without going into the merits
and facts of the case, merely relying on the provisions of Section 245
Cr.P.C. directed the appellant to file application for his discharge before
the trial Court.
This approach of the High Court is erroneous and
contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The High Court ought to
have allowed the application of the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
as the complaint does not attract the ingredients of Sections 34, 379,
411, 417, 418, 467, 468, 471 and 477 IPC. He, therefore, prayed to set
aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and quash the
proceedings in the Complaint Case qua the appellant.
8.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant while supporting the order passed by the High Court
submitted that the appellant
has not
properly discharged his
responsibilities as Branch Manager and acted in a casual manner due to
which respondent No.2 had to suffer financial loss as well as put to lot of
hardship. Particularly, he contended that in the light of the letter dated
17th May, 2004 when a lost/stolen cheque was presented for clearance,
it is expected from a responsible officer of the Bank that instead of
passing the cheque for payment, he should inform the account holder
about its presentation and also to bring to the notice of police such mala
fide presentation of cheque by the presenter, but the appellant has
totally failed in performing his duties. So, therefore is no reason for this
Court to interfere with the order of the High Court.
9.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the entire material available on record, including the complaint,
now the issue for consideration before us is whether in the light of the
letter dated 17th May, 2004 (Annexure P/1), the appellant has made out
any case to quash the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2397/2002
under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 467, 468, 471 and 477 IPC on
the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
10.
Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either
side, we deem it appropriate to have thorough look at Section 482
Cr.P.C., which reads:
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect
the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any orders of this Code or to
prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice”.
A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear that
the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of
process of Court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard and
fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of
law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straight jacket formula nor
defined parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent
powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
The Courts have to be very circumspect while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11.
This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v Biological
E. Ltd and Others 2000 (3) SCC 269, has discussed at length about the
scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
how cautious and careful the approach of the Courts should be. We
deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgement, which
reads:
“Exercise of jurisdiction under inherent power as
envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or
the charge sheet quashed is an exception rather than rule and
the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be
treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution
with the lodgement of First Information Report. The ball is set
to roll and thenceforth the law takes it’s own course and the
investigation ensures in accordance with the provisions of law.
The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and it’s
undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the
event, however, the Court on a perusal of the complaint comes
to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or
charge sheet on the fact of it does not constitute or disclose
any offence alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise
up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situations
as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to
be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal
process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be
continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice,
which is paramount”.
12.
This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines
with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts under Section 482
Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this
Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section
482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines
were reiterated by this Court in (1) Central Bureau of Investigation v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 592; (2) Rajesh Bajaj v.
State
NCT
of
Delhi
1999
(3)
SCC
259
and;
(3)
Zandu
Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr (2005)
1 SCC 122. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd., observed that:
“The power under Section 482 of the Code should be
used sparingly and with to prevent abuse of process of Court,
but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two
opinions on this, but if it appears to the trained judicial mind that
continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of
Court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be
exercised and proceedings must be quashed”. Also see Om
Prakash and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand 3012 (12) SCC 72.
What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at
the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied by the
Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the
complaint prima facie establish the case.
The Courts have to see
whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process
of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in
miscarriage of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that
quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice,
then the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While
exercising the power under the provision, the Courts have to only look at
the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie
discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a
trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact.
13.
In the backdrop of the legal position, well settled by this Court
through catena of judgements, we would like to deal with the facts of the
present case which lead to filing of the present complaint against the
appellant under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477
I.P.C. on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
14.
The facts of the case which are not in dispute, for better
appreciation of the facts and arguments advanced on behalf of the
appellant, it is necessary for us to have a thorough look at the letter
dated 17th May, 2004 addressed to the appellant/Branch Manager by
respondent No.2.
“Sir,
It is requested that the Applicant has issued Cheque Book in
which from Cheque No. 083691 to 083700 were 10 cheques in
Account No. 1132, out of which, payment up to Cheque No.
083696 has been received and on rest of the cheques are
signature of the applicant/account holder. The above cheque
book and other necessary payers were in my hand bag and I by
Bus from Pikhuwa was coming to Ghaziabad then in the bust
itself by mistake that bag was left and even on making to much
search could not found. Its information immediately I have
given at the police station, Sihani Gate.
Therefore, it is requested that you may treat the above cheques
as cancelled and on that may not kindly make payment to any
person.
It will be very kind of you”.
A reading of the above letter makes it very clear that the
complainant has instructed the appellant/Branch Manager not to pass
cheques bearing Nos. 083697 to 083700, the four cheques which were
already signed. There is no dispute that after submitting the above letter
to the appellant, when Cheque No. 083697 was presented in the Bank
on
2ndf
August,
2004,
the
same
was
not
cleared
by
the
appellant/Branch Manager in view of the letter of the complainant.
Subsequently, the appellant was transferred from that Branch to
Dhaulana Branch on 21st August, 2004, there was any instruction to the
Bank to inform the account holder or police when the cheque is
presented. It appears from the letter that only a request was made to
the Bank that the said four cheques shall not be honoured.
15.
If we look at the complaint and letter addressed by the complainant
to the Branch Manager, the entire grievance of the complaint appears to
be that basing on the written information which had been given to the
appellant on 17th May, 2004, when the stolen cheque was presented, he
should have given a complaint to the police. As the appellant has not
chosen to give the complaint to the police, according to the complainant
the other accused hatched a conspiracy with the appellant – Branch
Manager and accordingly cheated him.
16.
It is no doubt true that the Courts have to be very careful while
exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the same time we
should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle
their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is a pure
abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold. A
clear reading of the complaint does not make out any offence against
the appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under
Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. We are
of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated
the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit. It all amounts to
negligence in discharging official work at the maximum it can be said
that it is dereliction of duty.
17.
In view of our above discussion, we have come to an irresistible
conclusion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
appellant for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 34, 379,
411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. is a pure abuse of process
of law and the complaint case deserves to be quashed in the interest of
justice.
18.
We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court by quashing the criminal proceedings
pending against the appellant in C.C. No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections
34, 379, 411, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. on the file of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
.........................................J.
(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
.........................................J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI
JULY 2 , 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment