TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Orissa High Court declining to interfere with the order passed by learned SDJM, Bhubaneshwar in ICC 210 of 2000 taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). In the complaint it was inter-alia alleged as follows: The complainant as the Managing Director of Team Finance Company Pvt. Ltd., Janpath Tower, Bhubaneswar had availed hire purchased finance from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, accused appellant No. 1 with the consent and knowledge of its Managing Director, accused appellant No. 2 in respect of a vehicle for a sum of Rs. 1,89,000,00/-. He had given seven blank cheques drawn on Canara Bank, Main Branch Bhubaneswar in favour of accuse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the `Act'). The High Court found that it is not a case for interference under Section 482 of the Code. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants, inter-alia, submitted as follows: Pursuant to the minutes of meeting dated 23.6.1995 it was agreed to enter into a tripartite Agreement between the appellant No. 1-Company, the Respondent's company Team Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and the customers availing the loan and buying the vehicle whereby appellant No. 1 agreed to extend loans under hire and purchase/lease directly to customers with Team Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. being the guarantor for disbursal of the said loans to the customers for whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as following: 7. The appellants presented 3 cheques on 2-08-2000 against the discharge of the remaining outstanding payments bearing the number and amounts as follows: 8. All these cheques were returned by the Bank to the appellants with the endorsement that the account is not valid and insufficient funds. 9. In the meanwhile, in order to pre-empt the impending proceeding under sec. 138 of the Act, the respondent filed a criminal complaint CC No. 210 of 2000 against the appellants under Sections 406, 420, 294, 506, 34 IPC before SDJM Bhubneshwar on 11-05-2000, inter-alia, claiming that the cheques issued by respondent were towards an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,89,000/- and the said payment has already been made by the Respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing. That being so, the question of proceeding for alleged breach of trust does not arise. 17. It is interesting to note that the respondent does not dispute issuance of cheques. Even a casual reading of the complaint does not show that the ingredients of Section 406 IPC are in any event made out. It is also not understandable as to how Section 294 has any application to the facts of the case much less Section 506 IPC. In addition to this, perusal of the complaint apparently shows the ulterior motive. It is clear that the proceeding initiated by the respondent clearly amounted to abuse of the process of law. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992CriLJ527 , it was, inter-alia, observed as follows: 108. In the backdrop of the inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and c....