TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sri. Rajendran Mills Ltd., Salem (hereinafter referred to as "the Mill"). The Respondent No. 2/Accused No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Mill and the Respondent No. 3/Accused No. 3 Sri Sundaram is its Chairman, Respondent No. 4/Accused No. 4 Sri Sundar is the son of the Managing Director being the Respondent No. 2/Accused No. 2 and is in charge of the affairs of the Mill. The Respondents/Accused Nos. 5 to 13 are also responsible for administering the Mill. 4. In December 2001, the Mill requested the Appellant to supply cotton lint to the Mill for conversion of the same into yarn. The Appellant and the Respondents entered into transactions in 2001. Later, in January 2002, a Memorandum of Understanding in writing was executed between the Appellant and the Mill. 5. The Appellant has alleged that pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the Appellant supplied 1,03,920 Kgs. of cotton lint to the Mill for conversion into yarn. The Appellant has further alleged that Respondent No. 2/Accused No. 2 Shri Chokalingam had, from out of the said quantity of cotton lint, purchased lint weighing about 47,164 Kgs. of the value of Rs. 26,93,289/- on credit basis and the balance which was w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estigation in Crime No. 54 of 2005. 14. On 22-09-2005 Respondent Nos. 2 to 13 filed Crl.O.P. 27039 of 2005 Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court for quashing FIR No. 54 of 2005 alleging that the allegations in the complaint did not prima facie make out the offences for which the Respondents had been charged. 15. The Respondent State filed its counter affidavit to the aforesaid application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and prayed that the said application be dismissed. In the affidavit in opposition, it was contended that investigation revealed that the Accused persons had forged documents using blank letter head, papers and cheque leaves of the Appellant given to him before entering into business transactions. As such ingredients of Sections 468, 471, 420, 409 and 120 (b) Indian Penal Code were to be found. Furthermore, there was evidence that one of the Accused mentioned in the FIR namely Prasanna Chakravarthy had deposed about the forged letter prepared by him on the instruction of Kasi Viswanathan, Meiyappan, Rajarathinam, and Jayapal. 16. On 18-10-2005, the Appellant, as a de facto complainant, filed an application numbered Crl.M.P. No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit. 23. As held by this Court in Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur 2001 (2) SCC 570, it is only when a complaint is dismissed on merits after an inquiry, that a second complaint cannot be made on the same facts. Maybe, as contended by the Respondents, the first complaint was withdrawn without assigning any reason. However, that in itself is no ground to quash a second complaint. 24. In Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Anr. v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876, this Court dealt with the question whether the second complaint by the Respondent should have been entertained when the previous complaint had been withdrawn. The application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and the complaint dismissed by the majority Judges observing that an order of dismissal Under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure was no bar to the entertainment of second complaint on the same facts, but it could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, for example, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or a misunderstanding of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence 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 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alia, in State of Punjab v. Subhash Kumar and Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 437 and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 305. 33. In Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 293, this Court observed: 12. The settled proposition of law is that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. 13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. 34. In Vesa Holding (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court found that there was nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the Accused persons to cheat, which was a condition precedent for an offence Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. The complaint was found not to disclose any criminal offence at all. 35. It is wel....