//
you're reading...
legal issues

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.= RISHIPAL SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41732

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.

 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41732 – for full text – LAW FOR ALL.

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,936,806 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,874 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com