LexM/S. SURYALAKSHMI COTTON MILLS LTD. versus M/S. RAJVIR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R 432 A M/S. SURYALAKSHMI COTTON MILLS LTD. +-- II. • M/S. RAJVIR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. (Crl. A. No. 62 of 2008) B JANUARY 9, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] ,,_ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 482 and 154 - •• Inherent powers of High Court- Scope of- FIR - Quashing of c - FIR alleging commission of offence u/ss 406, 420 and 463 /PC - Quashed by High Court- Correctness of- Held: Though power possessed by High Court u/s 482 is wide, a great deal of caution is required while exercising the same - Where FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence, High D Court should not interfere with investigation - On facts, FIR was quashed before commencement of investigation by Police - Prima facie case for proceeding against accused uls 406 /PC made out - Thus, investigation confined to charge uls 406 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 406, 420 and 463. E The appellant-company had two units. During the period 2000-2004, the Managing Director of the appellant company left duly signed blank cheques by him with respondent nos. 2 and 3, the Directors of the appellant company, for business purposes. Thereafter, under the F scheme of arrangement, the units were demerged, transferred and vested in respondent no. 1. In the year ;.- 2005, disputes arose between the parties. The Managing Director of the appellant-company requested respondent nos. 2 and 3 to return the unused blank cheques, but the G same were not returned. The Director then filed a complaint with the police against respondent nos. 2 and 3 alleging conspiracy to misuse the said cheques, but the -i" complaint was not registered. Thereafter, the respondent issued a letter as also telegram stating that after demerger, H 432 M/.S. SURY'ALAKSHMl COTTON "MILLS l TD. v. 433 MIS. RAJVIR INOUSTR1ES LTD. & ORS. ·-\. for the difference of share transfer amount between the A appellant company and respondent no. 1, a cheque for Rs. 6.28 crores was drawn by the appellant in favour of the first respondent which was deposited for collection. The· appellant filed another complaint under sections 406, 420 and 463 IPC but the same was not registered. The B appellant then filed ;; complaint petition before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and on being ""( directed, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station lodged . ~ an FIR. However, the first respondent issued notices to the appellant for dishonour of cheques. Thereafter, the c respondents filed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C . . ' for quashing of the said FIR. Subsequently, respondent no. 1 filed a complaint petition under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act againstthe appellant company and also its Chairman and Managing Director. D The High Court quashed the FIR. Hence the present appeal. ,J Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The parameters of jurisdiction of the High E Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. are now well settled. Although it is of wide amplitude, a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise. What is required is application of well known legal principles involved in the matter. [Para 16) [442-B, CJ F State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; .... Janata Dal Vs. H. S. Chowdhary and Ors. 1992 (4) SCC 305; Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and Anr. vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill ·and Anr. 1995 (6) SCC 194; Indian Oil Corp. vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. 2006 (6) SCC 736; All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. G and Ors. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Anr. 2007 (12) SCALE -~ 391 - relied on. 1.2 Ordinarily, a defence of an accused although appears to be pla~sible should not be taken into consideration for exercise of the said jurisdiction. Yet H 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A again, the High Court at that stage would not ordinarily enter into a disputed question of fact. It, however, does not mean that documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the B criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused. Although a large number of disputes should ordinarily be determined only by the civil courts, but criminal cases are filed only c for achieving the ultimate goal namely to force the accused to pay the amount due to the complainant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.