2006 (5) TMI 562 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes criminal proceeding under Section 420 IPC, allows NI Act case to proceed

Tapan Kumar Ghosh and Ors. Versus State of W.B. and Ors.

Tapan Kumar Ghosh and Ors. Versus State of W.B. and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Quashing of criminal proceeding G.R. Case No. 1275 of 1994 under Section 420 IPC.2. Quashing of complaint case C.R. No. 317 of 1994 under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act.3. Applicability of Section 141 of the NI Act.4. Validity of simultaneous proceedings under NI Act and IPC for the same transaction.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Criminal Proceeding G.R. Case No. 1275 of 1994 under Section 420 IPC:The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceeding G.R. Case No. 1275 of 1994 arising from Kotwali P.S. Case No. 370/94 under Section 420 IPC, arguing that the facts and allegations were identical to those in the complaint case under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act. The court noted that the filing of a second complaint under Section 420 IPC for the same facts, same allegations, and concerning the same dishonoured cheque amounted to an abuse of the process of law. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., which held that invoking the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court for offences under Sections 406/420 IPC when a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was already pending constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1275 of 1994.2. Quashing of Complaint Case C.R. No. 317 of 1994 under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act:The petitioners argued that the complaint case under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act should be quashed as there was no firm under the name and style of M/s. Debendra Bejoy Ghosh and Ors., and the cheque was issued on a personal account. The court held that whether the firm existed or the cheque was issued from a personal account were matters to be decided based on evidence during the trial. The court found no ground to quash the complaint case at this stage and directed the trial to proceed, keeping all points open for consideration based on evidence.3. Applicability of Section 141 of the NI Act:The petitioners contended that Section 141 of the NI Act was not applicable as the cheque was not issued in the name of the firm. The court clarified that the applicability of Section 141, which deals with offences by companies, would depend on whether the firm existed and whether the cheque was issued on behalf of the firm. These were factual issues to be determined during the trial. The court kept the question of the applicability of Section 141 open for the trial court to decide based on evidence.4. Validity of Simultaneous Proceedings under NI Act and IPC for the Same Transaction:The court addressed the issue of simultaneous proceedings under the NI Act and IPC for the same transaction. It referred to the Supreme Court's observation in Nagpur Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. P. Radhakrishna @ Rajan, which held that merely because an alleged offence under Section 420 IPC was committed during a commercial transaction, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint. However, the court distinguished this case, noting that in the present matter, the filing of a second complaint under Section 420 IPC for the same facts as the NI Act complaint was an abuse of the process of law. The court emphasized that the complainant's intention to file a separate complaint under Section 420 IPC after filing the NI Act complaint indicated malice and an attempt to harass the accused. Therefore, the court quashed the criminal proceeding under Section 420 IPC while allowing the NI Act complaint to proceed.Conclusion:The court allowed the revisional application CRR No. 1142/96, quashing the criminal proceeding G.R. Case No. 1275 of 1994 under Section 420 IPC. The revisional application CRR No. 2753/96 was dismissed, allowing the complaint case C.R. No. 317 of 1994 under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act to continue. The court directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the complaint case and to decide on the applicability of Section 141 based on evidence. The court also vacated all interim orders and directed the lower courts to take necessary actions for early disposal of the complaint case.