RISHIPAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 02-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 1012 
RISHIPAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1300 OF 2014) 
JULY 2 , 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482: Quashing of 
proceedings - Complainant-account holder in Bank where the 
C. 
appellant was bank manager wrote a letter to the bank that 
some of his signed cheques were lost in travelling and same 
be not honoured when presented - Cheques were not cleared 
when presented - After few months when complainant received 
notice for dishonour of cheque from co-accused, the 
o complainant filed a complaint against the appellant and 
others alleging that appellant failed to perform his duties and 
ought to have informed the complainant and police when the 
stolen cheques were presented and, therefore, had conspired 
with other accused to cheat complainant - Issuance of non-
E 
bailable warrants against the appellant - High Court refused 
to quash the criminal proceedings u/s.482 - On appeal, held: 
It is no doubt true that the courts have to be very careful while 
exercising the power u/s. 482 - At the same time, the court 
should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to 
F 
otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into 
motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to 
be interdicted at the threshold - A clear reading of the 
complaint did not make out any offence against the appellant! 
Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged u/ss.34, 
G 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 l.P.C. - Even 
assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the 
instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit, it all amounted 
to negligence in discharging official work .and at the maximum 
it can be said that it was dereliction of duty - Continuation of 
H 
1012 
RISH I PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 
1013 
the criminal proceedings against the appellant for 
A 
commission of the alleged offence was a pure abuse of 
process of law and the complaint case deserves to be 
quashed in the interest of justice - Criminal proceeding 
pending against the appellant is quashed. 
The appellant was the Bank Manager of the 
Ghaziabad District Co-operative Bank where the 
respondent no. 2-complainant was holding an account. 
B 
On 17th May, 2004, the complainant wrote a letter to the 
Bank informing that he lost signed cheque book while 
C 
travelling and, therefore, Bank should not honour the 
cheques and should cancel them. Regarding the same, 
the complainant also lodged a written report at Police 
Station. The cheque was presented on 2nd August 2004 
and was not cleared by the Bank in view of the written 
instruction given by the complainant. 
D 
On 6th October, 2004, the complainant received a 
notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 
Act from co-accused alleging dishonour of cheque issued 
by complainant towards the purchase of bricks. 
E 
Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint against the 
appellant under Sections 34, 379. 411, 418, 420, 467, 458 
and 477 IPC on the ground that a conspiracy was 
hatched by appellant and other bank employees for 
cheating "him and because of his involvement in the 
F 
conspiracy, the appellant has not performed his duties 
with utmost responsibility and that when the stolen/lost 
cheques were presented, he should have given 
information to the police as well as to the complainant. 
The magistrate issued non-bailable warrants. The High 
G 
court refused to quash the proceedings under section 
482, Cr.P.C. 
In the instant appeal, the case of the appellant was 
that he came to know about the criminal complaint only 
when the non-bailable warrant was issued against him 
H 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A because from August 2004 to January 2007 i.e. during 
the period the proceedings in the criminal complaint were 
going on, he was posted at another Branch of the Bank 
and, therefore, the summons were never served upon 
him and, therefore, the High Court erred in refusing to 
B quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes 
it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under 
C this section is to prevent abuse of process of Court and 
to secure ends of justice. There are no hard and fast rules 
that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary 
jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but 
not a rule of law. It 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.