Court quashes retaliatory FIR, citing abuse of legal process under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed FIR No. 42 dated 01.03.2016, finding it to be a retaliatory measure against proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court determined that the FIR was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, constituting an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the court set aside the proceedings, allowing the petition and disposing of the stay application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the FIR under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC.
2. Allegations of forgery related to the addition of "Private Limited."
3. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR.
4. Counterblast nature of the FIR in response to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the FIR under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC:
The petitioners challenged the FIR No.42 dated 01.03.2016, arguing it was filed as a counterblast to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners highlighted that the complainant had denied the outstanding amount of the cheques through a letter dated 21.12.2015, and subsequently, cases under Section 138 were filed on 25.01.2016. The FIR was lodged on 01.03.2016, which the petitioners argued was retaliatory.

2. Allegations of Forgery Related to the Addition of "Private Limited":
The respondent claimed that the petitioners had illegally altered the cheque by adding "Private Limited" to the name "Karan Agri Genetics," thus creating a forged document. This was a key point of contention, as the alteration was alleged to be fraudulent.

3. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Quash the FIR:
The petitioners relied on several precedents to argue that the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in D.P. Gulati, emphasizing the steps required to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment. The court must assess whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and of impeccable quality, and whether it rules out the assertions in the charges. The petitioners also referenced the case of Hanuman Vs. The State of Rajasthan, where the FIR was quashed as it was found to be a counterblast to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. Counterblast Nature of the FIR in Response to Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court noted that the FIR appeared to be a retaliatory measure by the complainant to escape liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption clause of the Act is absolute, and allowing the complainant to pursue malicious criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The court observed that the cheques were issued by the complainant, and any disputes regarding the firm's name could be addressed during the proceedings under Section 138.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the FIR was a counterblast to the Section 138 proceedings and constituted an abuse of the process of law. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was invoked to quash the FIR, as it was found to be maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The court quashed FIR No.42 dated 01.03.2016 and set aside the proceedings, thereby allowing the petition and disposing of the stay application.

---