Quashing of private complaint under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC. – stop the payment of cheques as those are stolen- but Bank Manger received the cheque without intimation – the complainant received cheque bounce notices – High court dismissed the petition under sec.482 – Apex court held that 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.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.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.=
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. =
The main allegation levelled against the appellant was that when a
written information had already been given on 17th 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 17th 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.=
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.
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.