TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anaging and controlling affairs of the firm as such being responsible for its day to day work. She had contacted the complainant who is a supplier of industrial oils and lubricants for purchase of the same. As per the terms settled between them, she was to make payment of the purchased goods promptly and was to pay interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner No. 1/her firm started making purchases from the respondent-complainant. The payments received from the petitioners was duly credited in the account of the respondent during the period from 01.09.2022 till 21.10.2022. It was alleged that on 31.08.2022 an amount of Rs. 5,07,209/- was payable by the petitioners. Thereafter some payments were made which were duly reflected in the record as well as in GST returns. As on 01.11.2022, a sum of Rs. 2,11,073/- was payable by the petitioners in order to discharge their legally enforceable liability. The petitioners issued two cheques for sums of Rs. 1,13,245/- and Rs.96,146/- respectively in favour of the respondent. These cheques were presented for realization but were returned dishonoured with the report "Payment stopped by drawer". Legal notice was served upon the petitioners by the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is, therefore, urged that the complaint be quashed and the impugned order be set aside. 6. Reply has been filed by the respondent. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that there is no illegality in the impugned order and no ground has been made out for quashing the complaint in question. The cheques in question were issued by the petitioners to discharge their legally enforceable liability. They had stopped payment intentionally. They had not discharged their legally enforceable liability qua these cheques. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence produced on record had passed a well reasoned order. It is not open for this Court to interfere in this order while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. unless there was some incontrovertible evidence clearly indicating that the petitioners could not have any concern with the issuance of the cheques in question and it would be an abuse of process of the Court to ask them to stand trial. It is, therefore, urged that the petition is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and has gone through the record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be interfered with by this Court by invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. However at the same time, it is also to be kept in mind that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the section itself. It is well settled proposition of law that an appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of this power and the inherent powers so vested do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction upon the High Court to act according to whims and caprices. 12. Moreso, as per Section 204 of the Code, if in opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, he shall issue summons for procuring the attendance in summons/warrants case. The sine qua non for exercising the power under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. to issue process is the subjective satisfaction regarding the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding. At that stage, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the material collected is adequate for supporting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be extended to determine disputed questions of fact as it is only for the trial Court to decide the same after examining the evidence on record. As such, interference by this Court with regard to factual questions is impermissible in law. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), 2022 SCC Online SC 513, wherein it was observed that the consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pretrial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial Court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process. Also because of the legal presumption, when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favour of the complainant/prosecution, as the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption. 14. Reliance is further placed upon S....