1999 JTR(SC) 1257
1999 4 AICLR 685 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 27 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 4143 ; 2000 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 412 ; 2000 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 134 ; 1999 CriLR 790 ; 1999 4 Crimes(SC) 325 ; 2000 CrLJ 174 ; 2000 1 EastCrC(SC) 52 ; 1999 8 JT 413 ; 2000 1 KLJ(NOC) 22 ; 2000 1 OLR 172 ; 1999 4 RCR(Cri) 804 ; 1999 6 Scale 633 ; 1999 8 SCC 468 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 1466 ; 2000 1 UJ 265 ; 2000 KHC 273 ; 1999 9 Supreme 112
1999(9) Supreme 112
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Sunil Kumar -Appellant
versus
M/s. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1121 of 1999
Decided on 27-10-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.C. Jain, Sr. Advocate, R.K. Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar, Aman Vachher, Naresh Kumar, P.N. Puri, Advocates.
For the Respondents : H.N. Salve, Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocates, Sanjeev Sethi, Maninder Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocates.
(A) The appeal pertains to an order of the High Court quashing a first information report registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, who is also the appellant, alleged that the respondents, by conspiracy, presented blank cheques signed by him to withdraw amounts for a purpose other than intended, causing a loss of commission. The High Court held that the averments did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and that the criminal proceedings were instituted with an ulterior motive amounting to abuse of the process of law, especially since the complainant had already resorted to civil arbitration. This Court, while considering the submissions, observed that the necessary elements of trust under Sections 405 and 415 of the IPC were not made out and that the circumstances indicated the FIR was lodged to pre-empt a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and hence quashed the FIR as an abuse of process.
(B) The case underscores that criminal complaints instituted with mala fide or ulterior motives, particularly where a civil remedy is already sought, may be quashed as an abuse of judicial process. The essential ingredients of offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 468 (forgery for cheating) must be clearly made out, and the Court retains discretion to prevent the use of criminal process as a means of harassment or coercion.
Facts of the case:
The informant filed an FIR alleging that the respondents, by conspiracy, presented blank cheques signed by him for withdrawing money for a purpose for which it had not been given, causing a loss of Rs. 8,982 as commission. The respondents moved the High Court to quash the FIR on grounds that the FIR did not disclose offences under Sections 406/420 and that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive to pre-empt a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court quashed the FIR, finding abuse of process.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the necessary ingredients of trust under Sections 405 and 415 of the IPC were not indicated, and the criminal proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive, constituting an abuse of process of law. This Court accepted the submission that the allegations did not establish the offence and that the FIR was lodged to pre-empt civil liability, thereby upholding the quashing order.
Issues:
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the ingredients of the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, or forgery under the IPC. Whether the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive amounting to abuse of process of law. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a criminal complaint is filed with an ulterior motive, particularly to pre-empt a civil proceeding, and the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out, the Court may quash the FIR as an abuse of process, and such interference with the criminal process is not justified.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed and the order of the High Court quashing the FIR is upheld.
(A) The appeal pertains to an order of the High Court quashing a first information report registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, who is also the appellant, alleged that the respondents, by conspiracy, presented blank cheques signed by him to withdraw amounts for a purpose other than intended, causing a loss of commission. The High Court held that the averments did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and that the criminal proceedings were instituted with an ulterior motive amounting to abuse of the process of law, especially since the complainant had already resorted to civil arbitration. This Court, while considering the submissions, observed that the necessary elements of trust under Sections 405 and 415 of the IPC were not made out and that the circumstances indicated the FIR was lodged to pre-empt a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and hence quashed the FIR as an abuse of process.
(B) The case underscores that criminal complaints instituted with mala fide or ulterior motives, particularly where a civil remedy is already sought, may be quashed as an abuse of judicial process. The essential ingredients of offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 468 (forgery for cheating) must be clearly made out, and the Court retains discretion to prevent the use of criminal process as a means of harassment or coercion.
Facts of the case:
The informant filed an FIR alleging that the respondents, by conspiracy, presented blank cheques signed by him for withdrawing money for a purpose for which it had not been given, causing a loss of Rs. 8,982 as commission. The respondents moved the High Court to quash the FIR on grounds that the FIR did not disclose offences under Sections 406/420 and that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive to pre-empt a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court quashed the FIR, finding abuse of process.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the necessary ingredients of trust under Sections 405 and 415 of the IPC were not indicated, and the criminal proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive, constituting an abuse of process of law. This Court accepted the submission that the allegations did not establish the offence and that the FIR was lodged to pre-empt civil liability, thereby upholding the quashing order.
Issues:
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the ingredients of the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, or forgery under the IPC. Whether the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive amounting to abuse of process of law. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a criminal complaint is filed with an ulterior motive, particularly to pre-empt a civil proceeding, and the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out, the Court may quash the FIR as an abuse of process, and such interference with the criminal process is not justified.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed and the order of the High Court quashing the FIR is upheld.
JUDGMENT
Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.
2. The decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, quashing the F.I.R. No. 285 of 1998 at P.S. Rajouri Garden for offence under Sections 420/406/468 IPC is under challenge in this appeal by the informant. The informant-appellant filed the F.I.R. alleging therein that the respondents by an act of conspiracy committed criminal breach of trust by presenting blank cheques, signed by the appellant for withdrawing money for a purpose for which it had not been given and by so doing, they have caused a loss of Rs. 8,982/- inasmuch as this was the commission which the appellant had to bear. The gravaman of the appellant s case in the F.I.R. is that certain cheques had been given to the respondents more particularly the Commercial Manager with the specific understanding that these cheques can be presented against delivery of future vehicles and not for any past liability or dues, but the respondents presented the same which of course could not be encashed in view of the directions given by the appellant-drawer. However the appellant had to sustain the loss of Rs. 8982/- as commission charges. The respondents filed application in Delhi High Court for quashing of F.I.R. inter alia on the ground that the averments in the F.I.R. do not make out the offence of either Sec. 406 or Sec. 420 as the necessary ingredients under Sections 405 and 415 of the IPC have not been indicated. The .
respondents also took the ground that the criminal proceeding pursuant to the F.I.R. has been initiated with an ulterior motive and thereby there has been a gross abuse of process of law and as such the F.I.R. should be quashed. The High Court on consideration of the case of the parties and on the materials was of the opinion that the informant himself has already resorted to civil remedy for adjudication by an arbitrator and thereafter having lodged the complaint must be held to have the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the F.I.R. should be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. Mr. P.C. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant contended before us that the assertions made in the F.I.R. do constitute a cognizable offence and as such the same could not have been quashed in the light of the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.1 and judgment of this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.2.
4. Mr. H.N. Salve and Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for different accused persons on the other contended that the assertions made in the FIR even taken on face value do not satisfy the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been made and on the other hand it manifestly indicates that the complainant has instituted the criminal proceedings with an ulterior motice for wreaking vengeance and to pre-empt the filing of the criminal complaint against him under Section 138 of the Neogitable Instruments Act and, therefore, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would result in manifest injustice and as such quashed the FIR and this Court, therefore, would not be justified in interfering with the same in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel, issuance of process should not be allowed to be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. Responsibilities and duties on the Magistracy lie in finding out whether the alleged accused would be legally responsible for the offence charged for. The Court at the stage could be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the person needlessly. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 3.
5. Bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to earlier and the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on examining the allegations made in the FIR, we are persuaded to accept the submission of Mr. H.N. Salve and Mr. Arun Jaitley, appearing for the respondents that necessary of trust have not been made out and on the other hand the attendant circumstances indicate that the FIR was lodged to pre-empt the filing of the criminal complaint against the informant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court, therefore, was well within its power in quashing the FIR as otherwise it would tantamount to an abuse of process of Court. We, therefore, see no justification for our interference with the impugned decision of the High Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
6. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Sunil Kumar v. M/s. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. & Ors., 1999(9) Supreme 112 : 1999(8) JT 413
00030