Abuse of process in a counterblast complaint justified quashing, while refusal to club cheque dishonour proceedings was upheld.

A later criminal complaint alleging theft and misuse of a cheque was treated as a mala fide counterblast to pending cheque dishonour proceedings and was quashed as an abuse of process. The court relied on the timing of the allegations, the earlier progress of the Section 138 prosecution, and the lack of sustainable basis for the later complaint. The rejection of the request for joint trial under Section 223 CrPC was also upheld, as no perversity was shown and the cheque dishonour case had already reached final hearing. The cheque dishonour proceedings were allowed to continue in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the proceedings arising from it were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of court. (ii) Whether the rejection of the application under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the continuation of the cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the proceedings arising from it were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of court.

Analysis: The complaint filed against the petitioner was examined in the background of the pending cheque dishonour prosecution, the timing of the later complaint, and the allegation that it was initiated to defeat liability arising from the cheque transaction. The record showed that the allegations of theft and misuse of the cheque were raised after the cheque dishonour case had substantially progressed, and the proceedings in the later complaint reflected a counterblast to the earlier complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In these circumstances, the later complaint and the subsequent proceedings were treated as mala fide and not sustainable.

Conclusion: The complaint under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the subsequent proceedings were quashed in favour of the Petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the application under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the continuation of the cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were sustainable.

Analysis: The application for joint hearing was considered against the statutory scheme governing persons who may be charged and tried together. The cheque dishonour prosecution had already reached the stage of final hearing, and the court found no perversity in the order rejecting joint trial. The separate complaint alleging theft of the cheque did not justify disturbing the ongoing proceedings in the Section 138 complaint.

Conclusion: The order rejecting the application under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was affirmed, and the cheque dishonour complaint was permitted to proceed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The connected petitions were disposed of by granting relief only to the extent of quashing the later complaint, while leaving the cheque dishonour proceedings intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A later complaint that is found to be a mala fide counterblast to pending cheque dishonour proceedings can be quashed as an abuse of process, but the refusal to club such proceedings for joint trial may still be sustained where no perversity is shown.

---