TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t with the complainant for taking the liaisoning services of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 10 lakh. A Cheque of Rs. 1.50 lakhs was also given to the complainant, by way of token amount. In all, the applicants have paid Rs. 2.15 lakhs to the complainant by way of part payment of liaisoning fees of the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant had also hired the services of different Advocates and had also spent considerable amount under different heads and when the complainant demanded his remaining liaisoning fees, then the applicants gave a cheque of Rs. 7 lakhs dated 1-3-2011 and assured that the said cheque would get encashed. However, the said cheque stood bounced and the applicants all the time were assuring the complainant that they would pay the amount, but it appears that the applicants were making false promises to the complainant, so that the statutory period for filing complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, may expire. Later on, they refused to pay the amount and openly said that they were gaining time so that the statutory period of filing complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is over. It is also submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfill the promise. The Supreme Court in the case of Hridaya Rajan Pd. Verma Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2341 has held as under : "..... Mere breach of contract, cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time, when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.....". The Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Palanitkar Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2001 SC 2960 has held as under: "The ingredients of an offence of cheating are (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property ; or (b) the person so deceive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be exercised to see that the process of law is not abused or misused. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein. 9. In Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, this Court enumerated the cases where an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside as under: (SCC p.741, para 5) "(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complainant does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may." The Supreme Court in the case of International Limited and Anr. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348 had held as under:- "13. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is, as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence. The High Court being superior court of the State should refrain from analyzing the materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the complainant acquires is the remedy for breach of contract in a civil court. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction. In S.W. Palanitkar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 241, this Court held as under: "21 ......In order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an act of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating." The above view in Palanitkar's case was referred to and followed in Rashmi Jain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2014) 13 SCC 553. 22. By analysis of terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties, the dispute between the parties appears to be purely of civil nature. It is settled legal proposition that criminal liability should not be imposed in disputes of civil nature. In Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8) '8. ... It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and ha....