Section 482 CrPC and prima facie cheating allegations: dishonoured cheques and false assurances justified continued investigation.

The Madras HC stated that Section 482 CrPC should be used sparingly and that quashing is justified only when the FIR fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It noted that a commercial dispute with civil remedies does not bar criminal prosecution where the allegations indicate deception or dishonest intention from the inception. On the facts, the FIR alleged supplies on false assurances, dishonoured cheques, and individual involvement of the accused in promises of repayment. The Court treated the existence of dishonest intention and the effect of not impleading the company as matters for investigation and evidence, and declined threshold interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 disclosed a prima facie case warranting interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a dispute arising out of a commercial transaction with dishonoured cheques and without impleading the company as an accused.

Analysis: The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised sparingly, and quashing is justified only where the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. A mere civil dispute or availability of civil remedies does not bar criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose deception or dishonest intention from the inception. The FIR in the present case alleged that supplies were made on false assurances, that cheques were issued and dishonoured, and that both accused were individually implicated on allegations of false promise and repayment assurance. The question whether the dishonest intention existed from the beginning was held to be a matter for investigation and evidence, and the absence of the company as an accused did not, by itself, erase the prima facie allegations against the petitioners.

Conclusion: The FIR was not liable to be quashed at the threshold and the challenge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 failed.

---