Court Quashes FIR due to Malicious Intent in Commercial Dispute

The court quashed the FIR as it found it was lodged with mala fide intent to harass the company officers in a commercial dispute. It highlighted the need for proper procedural compliance and encouraged the parties to consider amicable settlement through mediation to avoid prolonged litigation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 04.06.2017.
2. Allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and other offences under the Indian Penal Code.
3. The commercial dispute between the parties.
4. Procedural compliance under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The role of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.) in forwarding the complaint.
6. The possibility of an amicable settlement through mediation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 04.06.2017:
The petitioners sought to quash the FIR arising from Amas P.S. Case No. 110 of 2017, registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 504, 506, 120(B), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and was lodged with mala fide intent to harass the officers of the company. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhajan Lal, which lists categories of cases where the extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised to quash FIRs. The court concluded that the case fell under these categories and quashed the FIR.

2. Allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and other offences under the Indian Penal Code:
The respondent alleged that the petitioners made false promises regarding vehicle maintenance and fuel efficiency, which were not fulfilled. Additionally, the respondent claimed that blank cheques signed at the time of loan execution were misused by the petitioners. The court found these allegations to be part of a commercial dispute rather than a criminal matter. The court noted that the respondent had admitted to signing blank cheques, which were later filled and lodged by the petitioners due to non-payment of loan installments.

3. The commercial dispute between the parties:
The court observed that the core issue was a commercial dispute over the non-payment of loan installments and the subsequent lodging of a dishonored cheque. The court noted that the respondent had already filed a complaint with the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission for compensation due to alleged defects in the vehicles and deficiency in service. The court emphasized that the criminal proceedings were being used to exert pressure in a civil dispute, which should be discouraged as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.

4. Procedural compliance under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court criticized the A.C.J.M., Sherghati, for mechanically forwarding the complaint to the police station without ensuring compliance with Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., which requires the complainant to approach higher police authorities before filing a complaint under Section 156(3). The court highlighted the Supreme Court's directives in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., which mandate such compliance.

5. The role of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.) in forwarding the complaint:
The court found that the A.C.J.M. acted in a routine and mechanical manner by forwarding the complaint without proper scrutiny. The court noted that the A.C.J.M. recorded the order on the body of the petition itself, which is not a healthy practice. The court emphasized that the A.C.J.M. should have ensured that the complainant complied with the procedural requirements before forwarding the complaint.

6. The possibility of an amicable settlement through mediation:
At the end of the hearing, both parties expressed willingness to settle the dispute through mediation. The court granted liberty to either party to approach a mediation center for an amicable resolution of the dispute. The court encouraged the parties to resolve the matter amicably to avoid prolonged litigation.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the FIR, finding it to be an abuse of the criminal justice system in a purely commercial dispute. The court emphasized the need for proper procedural compliance and encouraged the parties to settle the dispute amicably through mediation.

---