Blank signed cheques in a commercial supply dispute did not support forgery claims; complaint quashed as abuse of process.

Blank signed cheques issued in a settled commercial supply arrangement did not, on the admitted materials, sustain allegations of forgery and allied offences. The court treated the cheque issuance, reply notice, and account statements as consistent with an ongoing business relationship and outstanding credit dealings, while the delay in invoking criminal process after arbitration and demand notice weakened the complaint. The objection based on Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC was rejected as inapplicable on the facts. The private complaint was consequently found to be an abuse of process of court and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the private complaint disclosed a prosecutable criminal case or was liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of court.

Analysis: The dispute arose out of a long-standing commercial relationship in which the respondent had admittedly issued blank signed cheques against supplies made on credit. The reply notice and the statement of accounts showed that the cheques were part of the parties' settled course of dealings and that the respondent had requested reconciliation and time for payment. The complaint was lodged after substantial delay, and even after arbitration proceedings and the demand notice, no prompt criminal action was taken. On these materials, the Court held that the allegations of forgery and allied offences were not sufficient to displace the admitted business transactions and the liability reflected in the account statements. The plea based on the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also rejected as inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The private complaint was held to be a clear abuse of process of court and was quashed.

---