Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 315 (GAU)

Ibungatam Singh v. Prakash Chand Jain

2001-11-22

A.M.SAIKIA

body2001
A.H. SAIKIA, J. — By this revision petition the petitioners have sought for a direction for quashing of the Criminal Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1528 C/92 pending before the learned C.J.M. Kamrup. 2. The respondent, on 16.9.92 filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 1528 C/92 before the learned C.J.M., Kamrup against the petitioners alleging inter-alia that the accused petitioner No. 1 being one of the partners of petitioner No. 2 carrying on business of tailoring, approached the respondent at Guwahati to allow him to purchase different kinds of cloth amounting to Rs.3,665.00 with a promise that the payment of the same would be made within 45 days from the delivery of the goods. The respondent in good faith delivered the goods to the accused petitioner No. 1 and on subsequent dates also on such promise the respondent delivered further goods to the accused-petitioner No. 1. Ultimately on the basis of the promise of the plaintiff No. 1 the respondent .was entitled to an amount of Rs. 16,127.05 out of which only Rs.6,300.00 was paid. Since the petitioners failed to make the payment as per promise for which the respondent/petitioners had to part with the goods, it was alleged that the petitioners committed an offence u/s 420/406 IPC. 3. Mr Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argues that taking face value of the complaint itself no offence under Sections 420/406 IPC has been made out against the petitioners and as such, on that score alone this complaint proceeding is liable to be quashed. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the statements made by the respondent in his evidence which is annexed as Annexure-D to the revision petition and contends that in cross-examination itself the respondent had categorically stated that he received Rs.6,300/- against four bills during the period from 14.9.87 to 16.9.92 and in that process the respondent admittedly received more than Rs. 18,0007- from the accused-petitioners during the period from 14.9.87 to 16.9.92 including the payment of earlier bills which goes to show that the respondent received the excess amount so claimed by him in the complaint petition. 4. In support of his/submissions Mr Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following Apex Court's decisions:- 1) State of Haryana and others-Vs-Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992-SC 604. 2) Mrs. 4. In support of his/submissions Mr Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following Apex Court's decisions:- 1) State of Haryana and others-Vs-Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992-SC 604. 2) Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another-Vs-Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, respondents, AIR 1996-SC 309. 3) Ashok Chaturvedi and others-Vs-Shital H. Chanchani and another, (1998) 7 SCC-698. 5. In State of Haryana's (supra) the Apex Court laid down the categories of cases in which the High Court may exercise its power under Article 226 or u/ s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing a proceeding. As many as seven categories of cases had been mentioned in the said decision Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that his case falls under the first category of the cases recorded by the Apex Court which is as follows: "1) When the allegation made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even 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." The said view of the Supreme Court has been echoed in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj's case (supra) wherein the Apex Court reiterated and affirmed those categories of cases attracting the justification of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceeding. 6. In Ashok Chaturvedi's case (supra) again the Supreme Court had the occasion to observe that Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashing of the complaint, even if the allegation made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant are taken on their face value, no offence is made out as alleged in the complaint proceeding. 7. It is settled position that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. always to be exercised sparingly and that too with great care and caution. Keeping in mind such settled position, the Apex Court has laid down a special categories of cases against which this inherent power can be exercised by the High Court only to prevent abuse of the precess of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. 8. In the instant case, on maticulous perusal of the complaint itself and evidence of the respondent would go to show that there is no ingredient of the offence u/s 406/420 IPC to rope the petitioner under those sections. 9. 8. In the instant case, on maticulous perusal of the complaint itself and evidence of the respondent would go to show that there is no ingredient of the offence u/s 406/420 IPC to rope the petitioner under those sections. 9. That being the position, having regard to the above cited judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and on consideration of the totality of the factual position of the case and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a clear case for quashing of the impugned criminal proceeding. 10. Consequently, it is ordered that the criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1528 C/92 pending before the learned C J.M. Kamrup is hereby quashed. In the result, this revision petition is allowed.