TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Sreekrishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad, alleging that in the year 2006, while she was constructing a house at Kadampazhipuram, she borrowed an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the 1st petitioner on the basis of security of certain documents including signed blank cheque drawn on HDFC Bank, Kozhikode, signed blank papers, signed blank cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kadampazhipuram, revenue affixed blank paper etc. According to her, towards repayment, the accused demanded Rs. 8,250/- per month as interest. Later, she has availed a housing loan and repaid the entire amount along with interest. However, the petitioners have not returned the signed cheque and other documents even after settlement of the said loan account and the said documents were retained by the petitioners by informing that it will be handed over to them very soon. Later, on 30.11.2013, the 2nd petitioner issued a lawyer notice demanding return of Rs. 9,75,000/- stating that an amount of Rs. 9,95,000/- was borrowed from him on 27.8.2013 and they paid only Rs. 20,000/- towards repayment. Accordingly, they demanded Rs. 9,75,000/-. According to the 2nd respondent, the aforesaid demand was made by the petitioners a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Annexure-A statement made by the 2nd respondent, no offence is made out. Similarly, it was also pointed out that, even though there were allegations of threatening the 2nd respondent by the petitioners, the aforesaid allegation is very vague. Even according to the 2nd respondent, the incident of threatening was occurred in January, 2013 but despite the same, the complaint was submitted only on 14.2.2015 which is after the expiry of two years. It was also pointed out that the 2nd petitioner had issued a lawyer notice to the 2nd respondent on 30.11.2013 demanding an amount of Rs. 9,75,000/- on the basis of the cheque issued by the 2nd respondent. However, the complaint which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was submitted only after 13 months. As regard to the amounts claimed to have been repaid by the 2nd respondent as averred in Annexure-A statement, there are absolutely no documents produced to substantiate the same. In such circumstances, it was contended that, the aforesaid petition was made with mala fide intention and the police had filed a charge sheet as evidenced by Annexure-F without conducting any proper investigation. In such circumstances, the invocation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled in the year, 2006 for construction of the house from the 1st petitioner, was repaid immediately when she had availed a housing loan. It is also contended that, despite the repayment of the entire loan, the documents were not returned back by the petitioners. Thus even according to the 2nd respondent, the repayment of the loan which she had taken in the year, 2006 was made after two months of availing the same, but the petitioners have not returned the documents submitted a security for the said transaction. 10. In this regard it is to be noted that, despite the above, no complaint with respect to the same is seen to have filed by the 2nd respondent before any authorities. Even though, 1st petitioner is alleged to have threatened the 2nd respondent during the month of January, 2013, no complaint either with regard to the threat or with regard to the fact of non return of documents were submitted before any of the authorities. Later, on 30.11.2013, even after receipt of legal notice issued by the 2nd petitioner demanding an amount of Rs. 9,75,000/-, no complaint was submitted in respect of the same. Thereafter, the complaint was submitted only on 14.2.2015 i.e. after two year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milarly, he also relied upon the judgment reported in Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal's case (supra) wherein it was held that the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations leveled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as follows: "28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 482 CrPC must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alse. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under S. 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice." 12. It is true that the invocation of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be sparingly used in rare cases. Therefore, the exercise that should be performed before invoking the said jurisdiction, is to look carefully all the aspects of the case and to verify whether the case at hand is fit for invoking the powers under the said provision. Even while considering the contentions raised in this case by applying the level of caution expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court, I am of the view that their exists certain glaring aspects which cannot be ignored. As mentioned above, there is substantial delay on the part of the 2nd respondent in responding to the alleged misultilization of the documents allegedly entrusted by her with the petitioners in the year, 2006. Even after placing of the alleged threat by the 1st respondent during the month of January, 2013, the 2nd respondent did not raise any complaint against the same. Even after re....