IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2123 of 2006()
1. M/S.KARNATAKA SOAPS & DETERGENTS LTD.,
... Petitioner
2. MR.VASANTHA KUMAR,
3. MR.KESAVAN NAIR, AREA SALES MANAGER,
4. MR.M.K.PADMANABHAN,
Vs
1. MR.PUNATHIL NAVAS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/12/2006
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.NO.2123 OF 2006
------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2006.
ORDER
The petitioners are accused in a prosecution launched
against them by the respondent/complaint. The
respondent/complainant had business transactions with the 1st
petitioner/accused company. The 1st petitioner/accused company
has initiated steps for prosecution of the respondent under
Section 138 of the N.I Act before the court at Chennai.
Thereafter the 1st respondent has filed the present complaint
making allegations against the petitioners herein, inter alia,
under Section 406, 420 & 471 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations
raised by the respondent/complainant in the complaint is that the
1st petitioner company and its officials had induced the
petitioners to hand over a blank signed cheque as security when
they entered into the business transaction. It is the case of the
respondent/complainant that such cheque was given and
received on the specific understanding and in good faith that it
will not be misused and it shall be kept only as security. Fanciful
entries have been made in such cheque and the same has been
misutilised to vex and harass the respondent/complainant by
initiating prosecution before the court at Chennai.
Crl.M.C.NO.2123 OF 2006 2
2. The learned Magistrate after following the procedure
prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, has taken
cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners and
the case is now pending before the Court at Kannur, where the
transaction was allegedly entered into and blank signed cheque
was handed over. One of the accused/petitioners has entered
appearance before the learned Magistrate. The others have not
entered appearance so far. The petitioners have now come
before this Court with a prayer that the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C may be invoked in their favour to quash the
complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the complaint is liable to be quashed by invoking the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C for the first reason that the complaint
is totally false and for the second reason that the complaint is
lodged with the transparent intention of vexing and harassing
the petitioners. For these reasons, it is prayed that the
complaint may be quashed.
4. I shall carefully avoid detailed reference to facts and
any expression of opinion on the acceptability of the allegations
in either of the two cases. Suffice it to say that I do not find any
sufficient, satisfactory or compelling reasons which should
Crl.M.C.NO.2123 OF 2006 3
persuade this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. It is by now trite that the disputed questions of fact
cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The rival contestants have raised conflicting claims before
different fora about the circumstances under which the cheque
travelled from the possession of the complainant to the
possession of the petitioners. Accepting the contentions of
either at this stage, relief cannot be granted to either of the
contestants. The petitioners’ prayer for quashing the
proceedings on the ground that the allegations are false, cannot
in these circumstances succeed.
5. It is then contended that the allegations are raised
belatedly and as a counter blast against the 138 prosecution
initiated by the petitioners before the court at Chennai. The
mere fact that there was delay in filing the complaint cannot
certainly justify a conclusion that the allegations are false or are
raised with objectionable motives and vexatious intent. It would
be premature and presumptuous on the part of this Court at this
stage to come to any specific or authentic conclusion on that
aspect. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C do not deserve to be invoked.
Crl.M.C.NO.2123 OF 2006 4
6. A person against whom criminal adjudicatory process
is initiated without justifiable reason can certainly request for
premature termination of proceedings initiated against him. In
that view of the matter, the petitioners can certainly claim
discharge under Section 245(1) or 245(2) Cr.P.C. The powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be invoked sparingly and in an
exceptional case in aid of justice – to prevent the failure and
miscarriage of justice. In the facts and circumstances of this
case, I am not persuaded to agree that such powers deserve to
be invoked in favour of the petitioners at this stage of the
proceedings.
7. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, dismissed. But I may
hasten to observe that the petitioners shall certainly be entitled
to claim premature termination of proceedings initiated against
them by invoking the powers of the learned Magistrate under
Section 245(2) or 245(1) Cr.P.C.
R.BASANT
JUDGE
rtr/