2025 (1) TMI 56 - HC - Indian Laws

Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to quash Section 138 NI Act complaints without clear jurisdictional grounds

HP HC dismissed petition seeking quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Court held it cannot exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to ... Maintainability of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed against the petitioner - High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the complaint and subsequent proceedings or not - HELD THAT:- It is no longer res integra, that this Court, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot assume the role of trial Court and the defence, if any, of the accused cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage, as it is for the accused to prove his defence by leading the cogent evidence before the trial Court. Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the year 1992, in the lead case reported as 1992 CrLJ, 527, titled as State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Others [1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT], in which, the Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated the guidelines for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., where it was held that 'In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.' Now, if the facts and circumstances of this case are seen in the light of the the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that all the grounds, which have been taken in the petition, are based upon the defence of the accused, which will only to be considered by the learned trial Court - The petition is totally silent as to how the complaint filed by the complainant before the learned trial Court lacks ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act. Conclusion - This Court, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot assume the role of trial Court and the defense, if any, of the accused cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage, as it is for the accused to prove his defense by leading the cogent evidence before the trial Court. Petition dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe legal judgment primarily revolves around the following core issues:Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed against the petitioner, is maintainable.Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the complaint and subsequent proceedings.Whether the grounds presented by the petitioner justify the quashing of the complaint.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Maintainability of the Complaint under Section 138 of the NI ActRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 138 of the NI Act deals with the dishonor of cheques for insufficiency of funds or if it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. The section prescribes penalties for the drawer of the cheque if the cheque is returned unpaid.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the complaint was filed following the alleged dishonor of a cheque issued by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the trial court is the appropriate forum to evaluate the evidence and determine the validity of the claims made in the complaint.Key Evidence and Findings: The complaint alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque that was dishonored due to a discrepancy in the drawer's signature. The petitioner claimed the cheque was from a lost cheque book, and she had reported it missing.Application of Law to Facts: The Court highlighted that the factual disputes, such as the authenticity of the cheque and the relationship between the parties, are matters for the trial court to decide based on evidence presented during the trial.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that she did not know the complainant and that the cheque was misused. The Court held that these defenses should be presented and assessed at trial, not at the stage of quashing the complaint.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is maintainable and should proceed to trial for a thorough examination of the evidence and defenses.Issue 2: Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court referred to precedents, including the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which outlines circumstances under which inherent powers may be exercised.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the complaint does not disclose any offense or is frivolous or vexatious.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the petitioner's grounds for quashing the complaint were based on her defense, which requires evaluation during the trial.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from the Bhajan Lal case, determining that the petitioner's arguments did not justify the exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings at this stage.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the petitioner's claims of misuse of the cheque and lack of acquaintance with the complainant but concluded that these issues should be addressed at trial.Conclusions: The Court decided not to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint, as the petitioner's defenses should be evaluated by the trial court.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'It is no longer res integra, that this Court, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot assume the role of trial Court and the defense, if any, of the accused cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage, as it is for the accused to prove his defense by leading the cogent evidence before the trial Court.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and not as a substitute for trial proceedings. The trial court is the appropriate forum for examining evidence and defenses.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing that the trial court should evaluate the evidence and defenses presented by the petitioner.The judgment underscores the importance of allowing the trial court to conduct a comprehensive examination of evidence and defenses before considering the quashing of complaints under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's defenses were deemed matters for trial, not for pre-trial quashing. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the trial proceedings were allowed to continue.