ORDER The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 15.01.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.1975-C of 2006 by Ms. Saroj Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, by which she has taken cognizance under section 406 Indian Penal Code. 2. After the Counsels for respective parties were heard at length, the Court felt the necessity of perusing the documents that had been mentioned in the Petitioner?s application and required him to file the same. Hence by way of a Supplementary Affidavit, the communication between the BICICO and the Petitioner were brought on record. None of them are disputed by the Opposite Party No.2. 3. Before I advert to the contents of the Complaint, I wish to record the documented details of the transaction that took place between the parties. On 14.05.2005, the Opposite Party No.2 in response to a tender for purchase of assets of M/s Barway Granite & Stone Co. Pvt. Ltd., Pandra, Ratu Road, Ranchi, wrote to the Managing Director, Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited, the following:– “I have seen your advertisement for sale of assets of different sick-closed units of Bihar & Jharkhand area. In this connection, I had a discussion with your Mr. M. Alam and I express my interest to purchase the assets of M/s Barway Granite & Stone Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi, name of which has been changed to M/s Ranchi Granite & Stone Co. Pvt. Ltd. I hereby offer to pay Rs.51,00,000/- (Fifty one Lakhs) only for the entire assets of the company including free hold land, building, plant & machinery etc.” You will hand over the possession of all assets on payment of first 25% so that we can start re-organizing the unit for fresh commencement. You will extend all co-operation and protection for retaining peaceful possession of the assets. Mutation of land ownership in my proposed company?s name shall be your responsibility.” The BICICO by letter dated 14.06.05 informed the Complainant that it had tentatively accepted his offer and advised him for payment of 100% amount by 30.06.2005, failing which his offer would stand rejected and the earnest money deposited by him would be forfeited without further reference and the Corporation would be at liberty to re-advertise/renegotiate with other tenderers and or do as it deems fit and proper. On 28.06.2005, the Opposite Party No.2 informed the In charge Legal Cum OTS, Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd., acknowledging the letter dated 14.06.2005 and gave his acceptance. However, on 04.07.2005, Sri O. P. Singh, I/c OTS cum Legal of BICICO informed him that he had failed to deposit the money as intimated to him and also that he had received the copy of MOU personally. On 21.07.2005,once again Sri O P Singh, A.M. (OTS), BICICO, informed him that Board of Directors of BICICO have approved the sale on the following condition:– “As the purchaser has deposited only 50% of the consideration amount, the assets can be handed over on furnishing bank guarantee for the balance 50% of the consideration money.” “This is to inform you that since you have already paid Rs.27.00lacs out of the consideration money of Rs.53.12lacs as such you are advised to give Bank Guarantee for the balance amount so that further steps could be taken in this regard. Kindly expedite giving of the Bank Guarantee at the earliest.” In the next communication dated 31.10.2005 the Opposite Party No.2 raised his apprehensions in the following manner:– “We are extremely shocked to know from the Sub-Registrar Office at Ranchi that there was no registration of sale deed of 90 decimals freehold land at Pandara, Ratu Road, Ranchi, either in favour of Mr. Ananat Kumar, Managing Director of the above Company or in favour of the Company. Further, it was very surprising to know from Circle Officer, Ranchi, that there was no mutation of the aforesaid free hold land of 90 decimals at Pandara, Ratu Road, Ranchi, either in favor of the Mr. Anant Kumar or the above Company. Further in the context the aforesaid land is found to belong to a tribal which can not be sold under the Tenancy Act without the permission of the D.C., Ranchi. It has given strong doubt as to how the whole matter pertaining to land escaped the notice of M/s BICICO while considering sanction of term loan and its disbursement to the above company. In the situation faced, it is to request that M/s BICICO may be eager to look into matter immediately before deciding handing over final possession of the assets of the aforesaid company to us. In the situation faced, it is to request that M/s BICICO may be eager to look into matter immediately before deciding handing over final possession of the assets of the aforesaid company to us. Moreover, we are also very reluctant in such state of affairs to proceed further in the matter and we may be compelled to request for refunding the entire amount of Rs.27 lakhs paid so far to M/s BICICO in case the bonafide of the title of the aforesaid 90 decimals free hold land is found disputed as raised above.” He once again communicated to BICICO by letter dated 02.12.2005 about his anxiety with regard to the dispute on the land on which the unit was standing. Relevant portion is extracted below:– “Further there is no khata no.177 containing plots no.267A, 267 B, 267 C & 272 A as stated in the aforesaid sale deeds which are claimed to be registered by the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. There is as such no mutation of the aforesaid plots related to khata no.177 in favour of the aforesaid concern. It is categorically to state that copies of all documents such as sale deeds of the said plots measuring area of 90 decimals their mutation and rent receipts as assigned/hypothecated/ Pledged to the Corporation be and are found fictitious and fake. It is to enclose in the context a photocopy of the order passed by the Court of Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi, in S.A.R. Case No.106/02-03/TR632/03-04 related to the aforesaid land for your kind attention. As the matter is very serious to get your immediate attention for suitable action, we request again to advice us in writing whether we can proceed to purchase the aforesaid assets of the concern in the face of dispute of land as explained above. In case you could detect the frauds played by the aforesaid concern, you may be very pleased to refund the total amount deposited with the corporation at the earliest possible.” The next communication dated 16.12.2005 is to the Industrial Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, requesting him to direct the Managing Director, BICICO, to refund the payment of Rs.27 lacs with interest for the period resting with the Corporation. of Bihar, Patna, requesting him to direct the Managing Director, BICICO, to refund the payment of Rs.27 lacs with interest for the period resting with the Corporation. On 22.12.2005, Sri N. Bhushan, AM (OTS, Auction & Sale), BICICO, assured the Opposite Party No.2 with regard to his apprehension in the following manner:– “In this regard we have to say that the assets of the aforesaid unit is in our possession and we are ready to deliver peaceful possession of assets free from all encumbrances after receipt of balance payment from your side”. However, on 24.12.2005, the Complainant wrote that if there has been no verification of ownership records of the land payment should be refunded immediately to him. Once again on 28.12.2005, the BICICO reiterated its earlier stand and demanded a clear cut proposal from his side regarding payment of balance amount for purchase of the assets or his denial from his side so that suitable steps could be taken. The Opposite Party No.2 then thanked BICICO for agreeing to refund payment of Rs.27 lacs pursuant to discussion in presence of Industrial Development Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. However on 30.12.2005, the Petitioner being the Deputy Manager (Rec) asked for a definite stand about the withdrawal of the offer from his side and that any conditional inhibition would not solve the problem as raised by him. The letter charted the exact manner in which the transaction had taken place between the parties. Relevant extract of the letter is reproduced below:– “With reference to above subject, we wish to inform you that the captioned unit was advertised for sale under section 29 of the SFC Act on AS IS WHERE IS BASIS. An offer was received from your side vide letter no. Nil dated 14.05.2005 along with earnest money by pay order of Rs.1.00lac (pay order no.005406 dated 13.05.2005 drawn on Bank of India, Patna) for purchase of assets of the aforesaid Company as per our offer published in newspapers/website. Your offer for purchase of the assets of the said unit was placed before Tender Committee of the Corporation in its meeting held on 25.05.2005. A tentative acceptance of your offer for purchase of the mortgaged assets of above cited unit as taken over by BICICO at Rs.53.12lacs with standard conditions of the terms of offer was conveyed to you vide our letter no.672 dated 14.06.2005. A tentative acceptance of your offer for purchase of the mortgaged assets of above cited unit as taken over by BICICO at Rs.53.12lacs with standard conditions of the terms of offer was conveyed to you vide our letter no.672 dated 14.06.2005. The tentative offer was subject to the approval of Board of Directors of BICICO. As per the terms of offer, the consideration amount was to be paid immediately and the balance amount was to be paid in five equal instalments starting from June-05 to October-05. It was also informed that in case of failure to make payment as stated, your offer shall stand rejected and earnest money deposited by you shall be forfeited without further reference. Our above tentative offer was accepted by you as per your communication vide letter no. Nil dated 28.06.2005. A copy of MOU was also collected by you. It was found that you did not pay the consideration amount and, therefore, notice was sent to you vide letter no.803 dt. 04.07.05 to pay the amount immediately failing which the offer will be withdrawn. The first payment of Rs.1.00lacs was however received on 22.07.05. A further payment of Rs.15.00lacs was also received by us on 16.08.05 along with your letter requesting us to handover possession of the assets to you. In course of the above payment, you had assured to make balance payment by November-05. Further, you had not raised any objection on legal transfer of property to you in course of above payment. In terms of tentative offer of sale of assets to you, the Board of Directors of BICICO approved your offer with the condition that the assets will be handed over to you after furnishing bank guarantee for the balance 50% of the consideration money. The approval of our Board was communicated to you vide letter no.1498 dated 21.09.05 we find that it is only after our above asking you to furnish bank guarantee, you started raising objection on legal validity of registration of sale deed and its mutation by your letter no. nil dated 31.10.2005. However, neither withdrawal of sale offer or refund of payment so far made was sought from your side. nil dated 31.10.2005. However, neither withdrawal of sale offer or refund of payment so far made was sought from your side. A comprehensive reply to your letters and doubts so raised was sent to you vide letter no.2385 dated 22.12.05 informing you that the assets of the aforesaid unit is in our possession and we are ready to deliver peaceful possession of assets free from all encumbrances and execute an MOU after receipt of balance payment from your side. We would like to inform you that as per section 9 of SFC Act, 1951, BICICO is the deemed owner of the property of the aforesaid unit and as per sub-section (5) of SFC Act, 1951, “[where any Financial Corporation has taken any action against an industrial concern] under the provision of sub-section (1), the Financial Corporation shall be deemed owner of such concern, for the purposes of suits by or against the concern, and shall sue and be sued in the name of [the concern].” Further as per sub-section (2) of SFC Act, 1951, “Any transfer of property made by the Financial Corporation, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1), shall vest in the transferee all rights in or to the property transferred [as if the transfer] had been made by the owner of the property.” Therefore, the transfer of property of the unit as taken over by BICICO under section 29 of the SFCT Act, 1951, shall be done by BICICO as per the above provisions of SFC Act, 1951. We however find that instead of making balance payment to us and taking peaceful possession of the unit and execution of an MOU you are asking for conditional refund of Rs.27lacs as paid to us till date which is not as per the terms of offer. Further we inform you that no refund of money can be made to you legally without withdrawal of your acceptance from your side. We would like to inform you that the offer of sale of the above property to you has been approved by our Board of Directors as per the policy of our Corporation and any withdrawal from the agreed sale offer will be as per the policy of BICICO for which Board is the competent authority. On the above stated fact, you are requested to convey you stand about withdrawal of from the offer or to continue with the offer. On the above stated fact, you are requested to convey you stand about withdrawal of from the offer or to continue with the offer. Any conditional inhibition cannot solve the problem as raised by you. The matter is being placed in the next Board meeting of the Corporation also.” In reply to this communication, on 12.01.2006, the Opposite Party No.2 raised his doubt as to how the BICICO could have assumed itself as owner of the land and threatened him for forfeiture of his earnest money in such situation. Thereafter, A.M. (OTS, Auction & Sales) informed the Opposite Party No.2 that they had learnt that Sri Kailash Chand Jain was the Director of M/s Vedant Granite Pvt. Ltd., who is also main Promoter and Director of M/s Saraogi Oxygen Ltd., which was a defaulter unit with BICICO and, therefore, they were considering adjustment of dues lying in the account of M/s Saraogi Oxygen Ltd. from the amount deposited by M/s Vedant Granite Pvt. Ltd. However, later on, Board of Directors decided to refund Rs.26lacs forfeiting Rs.1.00lac deposited by the Opposite Party No.2 and communicated the same by letter dated 21.02.2006. The Opposite Party No.2 thereafter raised objection to forfeiture of Rs.1.00lac and complained in the following manner:– “We are no way to be made to suffer for the default on the part of the BICICO for accepting such fictitious documents. As such the forfeiture of the tender money of Rs.100000/- (Rs. One lac) would not appear simply uncalled for but highly illegal as well”. 4. In this background, let us examine the allegations in the Complaint. Delineating the history of the transaction he stated that one M/s Barway Granite and Stone Co. Pvt. Ltd. (later on known as Ranchi Granite and Stone Co. Pvt. Ltd.) was provided a Term Loan by Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as “BICICO”) against hypothecation of all its fixed assets including 90 decimals of free hold land on which it was situated. The BICICO had taken over the said unit on default of repayment of loan under section 29 of the SFC Act and advertised the same for sale for recovery of its dues. The Complainant learnt of the offer from the website of BICICO and enquired about it. The BICICO had taken over the said unit on default of repayment of loan under section 29 of the SFC Act and advertised the same for sale for recovery of its dues. The Complainant learnt of the offer from the website of BICICO and enquired about it. The Complainant was shown the certified copies of the purported mutation by the Petitioner and explained as to how BICICO was the legal owner. Induced and encouraged by their version, the Complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money and offered to purchase the entire fixed assets including 90 decimals of free hold land for total consideration of Rs.51.00lacs which was later increased to 53.12 lacs. The BICICO accepted the offer by letter dated 14.06.2005. The Complainant as Director of M/s Vedant Granite Pvt. Ltd. made payment of Rs.26lacs by 13.08.2005 and received Photostat copies of the documents. On verification, after visiting to Ranchi, he learnt that the documents were forged and fictitious. So, he intimated the BICICO about this fact by letter dated 31.10.05 and again by sending reminders but was surprised to find that the accused had no care and concern nor taking any action in the matter and realised that he had been cheated. It was, therefore, alleged that the accused persons in conspiracy with the management of the original unit holder and on the basis of forged papers claiming right of ownership obtained a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- from the Complainant and retained it for 8 months and they also dishonestly refused to return rupees one lac. They thereby caused loss of almost 3.5 lacs as interest to him. 5. In his statement on Solemn Affirmation, he stated that on learning of the advertisement about the sale of M/s Barway Granite and Stone Co. Pvt. Ltd. on the website of BICICO, he approached them when the accused persons allegedly conveyed to him that unit was good and on free hold land. They quoted the price of the Unit to the tune of about 53-54 lacs and demanded earnest money of Rs.1 lac which he deposited along with the tender. The deal was finally settled for Rs.53.12 lacs. The Accused persons then demanded that he deposit 50% immediately, at which he deposited Rs.26 lacs. The Accused persons gave him Photostat copies of the land papers which were allegedly fake and, in fact, the land was of ‘Adivasis’. The deal was finally settled for Rs.53.12 lacs. The Accused persons then demanded that he deposit 50% immediately, at which he deposited Rs.26 lacs. The Accused persons gave him Photostat copies of the land papers which were allegedly fake and, in fact, the land was of ‘Adivasis’. He stated that there was also an order by the Adivasi Court to vacate the same. He further alleged that he had given information to BICICO about the same, but, they maintained that he would be given the land on payment of rest of the amount. He complained that till date earnest money had not been returned to him. When he threatened to go to Court, the accused returned Rs.26 lacs after eight months. He alleged that the accused persons had dishonest intent right from the start and he had been made to suffer loss. He had allegedly suffered a loss of Rs.4.50 lacs. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was the Deputy Manager of BICICO at the relevant point in time and the transaction had taken place as documented and mentioned above which facts have been twisted to suit the Complainant’s ire at the failed transaction. 7. He further submits that as an Officer of BICICO he had no personal interest in the matter. As also that the money paid by the Complainant was through Banker’s cheques and deposited in account of BICICO and hence, there was no entrustment with him nor has he converted the same to his use. The allegation that the Petitioner had made false representation is completely absurd and unbelievable. It does not stand to reason as to why the Petitioner would do it in his official capacity when there was no personal gain in the transaction. Under the circumstances, there is complete lack of mens rea which was an essential ingredient for such an offence. 8. He further submits that the fact of the matter was that the dispute centered around only on non-return of Rs.1 lac deposited as earnest money which stood forfeited on account of Complainant?s failure to honor the terms of the agreement and the Complaint had been filed with a view to realize the same from BICICO. The Petitioner brings to notice of this Court an order dated 06.08.2009 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. The Petitioner brings to notice of this Court an order dated 06.08.2009 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.25623/2007 quashing the prosecution of co-accused Pankaj Kumar holding that substratum of lis revolved around a sum of Rs.1 lac which had already been withdrawn by the Opposite Party No.2 on the orders of the Writ Court and, therefore, the prosecution against him would touch fringe of abuse of process of the Court. 9. Counsel for the complainant does not dispute the sequence of events in the transaction. He, however, submits that this case does not come within the parameters of the case of State of Harayana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 AIR SC 604. Further submission is that a clear case of breach of trust is made out since the Complainant has specifically alleged that it was on the false representation and inducement of the Petitioner that the Complainant had parted with money for BICICO and his case is not similar to that of Pankaj Kumar, whose case stood quashed by this Court. Moreover, the return of the money by the decision of the Writ Court did not absolve the accused persons of having acted with dishonest intention. 10. After having heard the parties at length and perused the documents, I must remark that juxtaposed with the communications between the parties reproduced above one can see that the Complaint is its skeletal version suppressing important communications to convert a purely financial dispute to one of criminal nature. Ordinary prudence cautions us that not every failed commercial transaction entitles itself to land up in a criminal court. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. ( AIR 2006 SC 2780 ) very succinctly remarked:– “There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. ( AIR 2006 SC 2780 ) very succinctly remarked:– “There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged……………… While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the Courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under S. 250 Cr. P. C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant.” 11. Nevertheless since cognizance has been taken under Section 406 it would be necessary to examine its essential ingredients as enumerated in Section 405 IPC for purpose of disposal of this case:– “405. Criminal Breach of Trust.– Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. On a plain reading, the requirements to satisfy Prosecution under the Section are ‘entrustment’, of a property and its ‘dishonest misappropriation’ or ‘conversion’. In the present Complaint the allegation is that the Complainant entrusted the amount in question to BICICO which retained it for a period of eight months causing loss of interest. There is no allegation that the Petitioner was entrusted with the amount or that he converted it to his own use. 12. In the present Complaint the allegation is that the Complainant entrusted the amount in question to BICICO which retained it for a period of eight months causing loss of interest. There is no allegation that the Petitioner was entrusted with the amount or that he converted it to his own use. 12. I also do not find it difficult to hold that none of the accused persons had any personal interest in representing to the Complainant that the Unit, namely, M/s Barway Granite and Stone Company Pvt. Ltd. was free from all encumbrances. By the Complainant’s own admission he was himself convinced after the discussion with the Petitioner upon which he decided to proceed and the documents hypothecated by the defaulter Unit were shown to the Complainant by the accused persons during the negotiations. There is no allegation that the documents shown to the Complainant during the negotiation differed with the documents after negotiation was complete, and, thus, even accepting that the documents hypothecated by the previous Unit Holder were false, no misrepresentation could be said to have been committed by the accused persons. Had the Petitioner shown the Complainant a different set of documents before the negotiations, surely a case of false representation would be made out but such is not the situation here. Therefore, the bald allegation in paragraph 22 that “the Accused Persons with dishonest intention and by practicing fraud after committing forgery for the purpose of cheating made false representation on the strength of the forged documents and obtained Rs.27.00 lac from the Complainant and retained it for 8 months and thereby, caused wrongful loss of Rs.3.5 lac on account of interest besides other losses, and as such, they are liable to be tried & punished for the said offence”, is not tenable. 13. Moreover, the Complainant has admitted that BICICO had all along taken responsibility as the sole owner of the property. Whether BICICO was, in fact, the sole owner, or, it was a misrepresentation, and, was not in position to honor the agreement on delivery of payment of agreed amount, could only be concluded when an opportunity so arose. In the present transaction, even before the veracity of the representation could be tested, the Complainant pulled out of the agreement on the belief that BICICO was not the sole owner and, therefore, not in a position to deliver the unit. In the present transaction, even before the veracity of the representation could be tested, the Complainant pulled out of the agreement on the belief that BICICO was not the sole owner and, therefore, not in a position to deliver the unit. The stage as to whether BICICO had misguided/misled the Complainant to believe that the Corporation had full rights over the entire fixed assets including the disputed land and was going to confer him right and title and deliver clear possession of the entire assets without any encumbrances on payment by the Complainant of the balance consideration amount, or to test whether the documents were forged and fabricated had not arrived, and, thus, his allegation in paragraph 20 that “the accused persons were dishonestly trying to sell to the Complainant without conferring him right & title of the said land to cause wrongful loss and they fraudulently obtained Rs.27 lac from the Complainant and demanded the balance amount from the Complainant, and thereby, to cause wrongful loss with dishonest intention” is based on mere speculation and fit to be rejected. 14. In the final analysis, one finds that the dispute centers only around withholding of Complainant?s money and as to whether it was for cogent reasons or otherwise. Apart from the fact that even conceding the same no criminal offence would be made out it is notable that the Complainant very well knew as to why it was withheld and yet he represented before the Magistrate that the accused persons had been entrusted with Rs.26 lacs plus Rs.1 lac out of which they misappropriated Rs.1 lac (paragraph 21 of the Complaint and his SA), but did not bring it to its notice, that the said amount had been retained on account of an express bilateral agreement and not “in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied” which is an essential ingredient under section 405 Indian Penal Code. Had the Complainant placed before the Magistrate the entire transaction he may not have taken cognizance in the matter since, on the face of it, his allegation in paragraph 21 that “the Accused Persons have dishonestly refused to return Rs.1.0 lac and has thereby, clearly committed the offences of breach of trust punishable u/s 406 read with Section 409, cheating punishable u/s 420 and has also committed forgery and cheating by forgery punishable 468 & 471 of the IPC in conspiracy with the amongst all the Accused Persons and thereby, attracting Section 120(B) of the IPC”, does not constitute any offence, much less, under sections 406 Indian Penal Code. 15. Thus, the Complainant, even while accepting the factual arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner before this Court, has, evidently suppressed material facts and filed the present Complaint probably in an attempt to arm twist the accused persons to refund the earnest money retained by them on his failure to honor the agreement. He suppressed the fact that the retention of the principal amount was on account of the valid on- going communications on an important fundamental issue and his own delayed response on payment of performance guarantee and as to whether he wished to withdraw from the transaction. He also suppressed the fact that BICICO had responded appropriately to his objections on title of the land and instead complained that they had kept quiet on the issue. Evidently, the Complaint on the face of it lacks bonafides and Courts would ordinarily frown upon such irresponsible litigations. 16. In the fact situation of this case, legal maxims “Suppressio veri, expressio falsi—i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood and Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi—i.e. suppressing the truth, suggesting the false are apt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs Vs. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. [(1997) 10 SCC 358] in paragraph 5 had upheld the definition of suppression given by the Customs Tribunal as—“suppression envisages a deliberate or conscious omission to state a fact with the intention of deriving wrongful gain.” 17. Etymologically the definition of false is not very different. It means “Erroneous; Untrue; the opposite of correct, or true” whereas the meaning of ‘Correct’ is ‘conformable to truth’. Certainly, the present Complaint does not conform to truth and is incorrect on account of material suppression. Etymologically the definition of false is not very different. It means “Erroneous; Untrue; the opposite of correct, or true” whereas the meaning of ‘Correct’ is ‘conformable to truth’. Certainly, the present Complaint does not conform to truth and is incorrect on account of material suppression. Now the question is as to how a Court should deal with such litigations. To my mind, Section 193 I. P. C. would come to the aid of a Court in such situations. Hence, the Court below will be at liberty to proceed against the Complainant in the manner provided by the Penal Code and Cr. P. C. in the fact situation discussed above. 18. Even while I am aware that increase in the Court’s dockets indirectly signifies faith in it but I also must note with grave concern and anguish that it is innumerable Complaints like these that clog the wheels of justice resulting in people losing people faith in the system. In the existing procedure an irresponsible Complainant can set the law in motion on his mere appearance with his witnesses in Court to damage the system. It is not only the Accused but also the system which is in urgent need of protection. 19. Unlike the procedure prescribed for cases instituted on police reports where investigation is conducted by an independent agency and there is a provision for proceeding against the Informant in case of a false Complaint by recommending action under Section 182/211 Indian Penal Code unfortunately in the procedure prescribed for filing Complaint Cases there is no method by which false Complaints can be weeded out at the initial stage. If one party, like in the present case, comes to the Court suppressing vital facts, the Magistrate has no option but to proceed in the manner prescribed, catching the proposed accused unawares, and before he can react he is already in the dock after which the rigmarole of Anticipatory Bail/Surrender/Bail begins for him. If his means so allow, he has the option of moving the higher Courts for relief which again is fraught with the predominant element of uncertainty. Importantly, from a common man’s perception, the fact that he has been dragged to Court for no fault of his is injustice to him. 20. Apart from the vagaries which attend the accused, the Court’s precious limited resources of time is further depleted in examining the Complainant, his witnesses. Importantly, from a common man’s perception, the fact that he has been dragged to Court for no fault of his is injustice to him. 20. Apart from the vagaries which attend the accused, the Court’s precious limited resources of time is further depleted in examining the Complainant, his witnesses. If the accused are acquitted or the Complaint dismissed justice is done but in this transaction, the legal system suffers. In my suggestion, it is time that the Legislature suitably once again amends the Cr. P. C. in order to weed out false Complaints at the threshold. The Legislature in the past has been cognizant of institution of false Complaints as is evident from the Cr. P. C. (Amendment) Act 2005 (25 of 2005) on the following consideration but it has not had the desired results. Both quoted below:– Notes on Clauses “False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that the innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (Notes on Clauses, Clause 19) S. 202. Postponement of issue of process.–(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, *[and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:” [Amendment in italics] 21. I am conscious that Sections 191-195 Indian Penal Code do provide for prosecution of persons who give/fabricate false evidence but Indian Courts are reluctant to take recourse to these provisions. I am conscious that Sections 191-195 Indian Penal Code do provide for prosecution of persons who give/fabricate false evidence but Indian Courts are reluctant to take recourse to these provisions. In fact, people who lie on oath can be prosecuted under Section 199 Indian Penal Code but most often than not they get away in full public view without any harm. 22. Noting from experience, in Bihar, it is not uncommon for litigants to file a Complaint for all kinds of reasons with typical allegations of accused coming upon their lands, /into their house thrashing them and snatching their money /belongings. The ingredients are safely and surely met. Most often than not, once the accused is put in the dock the interest of the Complainant wanes, as a result of which Complaints remain pending for years together. If luckily dismissed for non prosecution a second round of irresponsible litigation begins. Quoting from authentic statistics, in Nalanda, a district of Bihar, alone, as many as 12 Complaints of the years between 1973-83 are still pending whereas as many as 3069, 3087, 3255, 3512 were filed in the years 2007/08/09/10 respectively. I must clarify that it is not my intent even remotely suggest that all Complaints are false but the mode of filing and its entertainment is such there is no scope for the Magistrate to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the Complaint till the end of trial. Even in Warrant cases instituted on a Complaint it is rarely that an accused can be discharged at the stage of 245 Cr. P. C. In this background, I would sincerely suggest that the Law Commission consider introduction of a modified version of the American pattern of filing Complaints relevant provisions of which are reproduced below notwithstanding the possibility of it protracting the procedure at its inception for the comprehensive reasons that follow later in this judgment. 23. Rule 11(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stipulates that all representations to the Court be filed thus:– “(b) REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. By presenting to the Court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:” Further, in Rule 11(c) there is a Provision of Sanctions:- “(c) SANCTIONS. (1) In General. By presenting to the Court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:” Further, in Rule 11(c) there is a Provision of Sanctions:- “(c) SANCTIONS. (1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Court determines that Rule 11 (b) has been violated, the Court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee. (2) Motion for sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for the motion. (3) On the Court’s Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b). (4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.” Underlining mine The notes of American Advisory Committee on Rules, 1993 Amendment on Subdivisions (b) (c) help us understand its significance. “……The revision in part expands the responsibilities of litigants to the Court, while providing greater constraints and flexibility in dealing with infractions of the rule. The rule continues to require litigants to “stop-and-think” before initially making legal or factual contentions. “……The revision in part expands the responsibilities of litigants to the Court, while providing greater constraints and flexibility in dealing with infractions of the rule. The rule continues to require litigants to “stop-and-think” before initially making legal or factual contentions. It also, however, emphasizes the duty of candor by subjecting litigants to potential sanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable and by generally providing protection against sanctions if they withdraw or correct contentions after a potential violation is called to their attention” 24. To discuss further, the major and clinching difference in such a procedure is that a burden is cast upon the Complainant at the initial stage to certify that the Complaint is a full disclosure of facts and he binds himself to deterrent action in case it is not. The onus is not confined to revealing what he maintains is true, but also to placing before the Court all facts germane to the issue, which the Court is entitled to know at the first instance. Truth then prevails over individual interest and a certain amount of immunity is created, both, for the Accused and the System. Presently, even though statements are recorded on oath in Court where witnesses loosely say that what they will state is true, but there is no voluntary submission to a likely penal action in case of default, which is essential in my view, in present times, when instances of false Complainants, clouding the credibility of the criminal justice dispensation system, are abundant. Moreover, in the changed situation Section 250 Cr. P. C. empowering a Magistrate to impose costs for false accusations, which is more or less dormant in the existing system, is also likely to be resuscitated. Thus, the three major players or stake-holder i.e. the Court, the Complainant, and the Accused will share equal space ensuring a more responsible litigation and equitable justice. 25. P. C. empowering a Magistrate to impose costs for false accusations, which is more or less dormant in the existing system, is also likely to be resuscitated. Thus, the three major players or stake-holder i.e. the Court, the Complainant, and the Accused will share equal space ensuring a more responsible litigation and equitable justice. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussions, rejecting further the argument of the Complainant that the present case is not covered by Bhajan Lal (supra), for the reason that the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically stated that the instances enumerated therein are not exhaustive and the discretion is always with the Court, while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction, to consider a host of other attending circumstances which would be peculiar to the case at hand, and, would, resultantly, warrant attention in a particular manner, entire proceeding including order dated 15.01.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.1975-C of 2006 by Ms. Saroj Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, by which she has taken cognizance under section 406 Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed. 26. The application stands allowed with the aforesaid observations. 27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Hon’ble Chairman, Law Commission of India, 7th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 01, for needful consideration.