TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;Code of Criminal Procedure') by the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar, dated 22.05.2000 in Case No. 63/2000, taking cognizance of offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Respondent No. 2, Surendra Singhla, lodged a police case against the Appellants as well as one Satish Singhla on 28.04.1998. According to the averments and allegations in the written report, the informant is a partner of the Firm M/s. Rajshree Cotton Corporation, Sriganganagar, working as broker as well as dealer in the sale and purchase of cotton. The Appellants are Directors of M/s. R.P. Taxfab Limited, Mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed cheques but for the assurances given by the accused persons in presence of two witnesses. It is further alleged that when the informant presented cheque dated 25.03.1998 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs) through his bank, the said cheque was dishonoured because accused Satish Singhla had got the payment of the cheque stopped and that all the accused by mutual consent (conspiracy) have played a fraud and cheated him by making false statement and holding false assurances whereby they induced him to sign some papers. Allegedly, the accused had full knowledge even before issuing the cheques that these shall not be honoured and they had such dishonest intention from the beginning. 4. It is not in dispute that when the cheque bou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the High Court by the order under Appeal. 7. Learned senior Counsel for the Appellants drew our attention to some letters and communications such as annexure P.1 and P.2 both dated 27.02.1998 and annexure P.10 dated 24.02.1998 to support his contention that on 24.02.1998 itself the change in the management was brought to the notice of the informant with an intimation that a liability of Rs. 23,00,000/- (rupees twenty three lacs) has been transferred to the new management which they shall pay and thereafter, on 27.02.1998 the informant received payment from the Appellants as well as accepted the post-dated cheques on 27.02.1998 itself. On that basis it has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h are as under: (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... At the present stage when the informant and witnesses have supported the allegations made in the FIR, it would not be proper for this Court to evaluate the merit of the allegations on the basis of documents annexed with the memo of appeal. Such materials can be produced by the Appellants in their defence in accordance with law for due consideration at appropriate stage. 12. Learned Counsel for the Respondents is correct in contending that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint discloses a criminal offe....