Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1457 (GUJ)

Ashokbhai Devsibhai Kacha v. State of Gujarat

2016-07-22

A.J.SHASTRI

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 71 of 2011 and contended that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error of jurisdiction. Hence, on that premise, the petition was brought before this Court. During the course of pendency of the petition, some amendment has also taken place at the instance of the petitioner by addition of prayer seeking quashment of the complaint and the process issued by the learned Sessions Judge. Be that as it may, the present petition essentially being a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but later on tried to enlarge original scope of petition by bringing amendment and invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also was brought to the petition. 2. The brief facts under which this complaint is lodged are that complainant namely respondent No. 2 is the permanent resident of Savarkumdla and he is serving in Nagarpalika. The present petitioners-original accused are also resident of Savarkundla and having joint property over survey No. 41, 41/1, 42/2 bearing plot No. 237 and 238 admeasuring 2169 square meters areas. It is the case of the complainant that present petitioners have projected while entering into the transaction that the title with respect to this portion of land is clear without any encumbrance. By this representation made by the petitioners, the complainant was persuaded, entered into transaction in the form of Banakhat. It is further the case of the complainant that it was projected by these petitioners that outstanding amount of Gujarat Electricity Bill is to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and thereby as such the said amount set apart for adjustment at the time of final payment. It is the case of the complainant that this projection and representation given by the petitioners the complainant entered into a transaction but later upon an inquiry, it has been found that over this portion of land, there was one Rolling Mill operated in the name of Sardar Steel and Iron and it has already been found that a huge amount of electricity bill to the extent of Rs. 36,00,000/- was outstanding and these material facts have been concealed from the complainant. The petitioners have entered into transaction with the complainant. 36,00,000/- was outstanding and these material facts have been concealed from the complainant. The petitioners have entered into transaction with the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that if these facts could been conveyed to the complainant, he would not have entered into such transactions and therefore, according to the complainant, this is nothing but a clear example of the cheating with the complainant and, therefore, in sum and substance by giving representation of this kind to the complainant he was persuaded by the petitioners to enter into transaction and thereby parted with the money and therefore in the background of these facts, the complaint came to be filed. 3. As stated above this complaint was sent for inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and there was specific verification taken by the learned Magistrate to entertain the complaint. Despite the aforesaid fact since, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savarkundla on 21.11.2011 resorting to the provisions contained under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissed the complaint the respondent was led to prefer a Criminal Revision Application and upon appreciation of all the material relating to the issue, the learned Sessions Judge has issued the process/summons for offence punishable under Section 420read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 27.02.2012. It is against this background the petitioner has brought the petition. 4. Before dealing with the issue entangled in the present proceedings a reference is required to be made of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 5. 5. The literal meaning of this Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would make it clear that there was a complete misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners which led the complainant to the transactions and if the basic ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are to be seen prima facie, it appears to the Court that some adjudication is required and complaint is not in a position to be thrown out at the initial stage itself. With this background, the court has dealt with the issue. 6. The learned advocate Ms. Sadhna Sagar appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the issue involved in the matter is purely of civil in nature and therefore, the respondent complainant has wrongly adopted a method of filing criminal complaint just to pressurize the petitioners to submit to their unreasonable demands. The learned advocate has drawn attention of the Court that pursuant to the complaint having been filed and after examining the material on record on 21.11.2011, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savarkundla has exercised of powers under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by not entertaining the complaint dismissed whereupon the original complainant has objected by way of filing criminal revision application referred to above. After perusal of the orders passed by the court below, the learned advocate for the petitioners states that no offence is prima facie made out as alleged in the complaint. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that some Banakhat came to be issued wherein at a later point of time only Rupees one lakh remain outstanding and submitted that it is simply a circumstance of civil nature. The order passed by the Court below is not in consonance with the settled legal position. To substantiate her argument, she has relied upon the decision delivered by the Apex Court in case of Dalip Kaur and others versus Jagnar Singh and another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 and contended that since the allegations leveled in the complainant are essentially of civil in nature and the ingredients of cheating are not reflected even prima facie, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error of jurisdiction in issuing and maintaining process under Section 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. For substantiating further, she has relied upon the decision delivered by the Apex Court in case of Robert John D'Souza And others versus Stephen V. Gomes and another reported in (2015) 9 SCC 96 . Placing reliance on the same it is contended that any of the provisions of alleged offence are attracted for criminal breach of trust or cheating. It was also brought to the notice of this Court of another decision in case of Joseph Salvaraja versus State of Gujarat and others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59 and in case reported in 2013 (6) SCC 740 delivered by Apex Court and contended ultimately that this being a property issue involved between the parties and purely of civil nature, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error of jurisdiction and thereby requests the Court to grant relief as prayed in the petition. No other submissions made. 7. As against this, the learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Bhavsar appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 complainant has submitted that the present petition is basically a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein this Court has called upon to examine the validity of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application but at a later point of time Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked and therefore, even if another view is possible, this Court should not substitute qua on that view expressed by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. Mr. Bhavsar learned advocate has drawn attention of the Court that the learned Sessions Judge has specifically dealt with core issue involved in the complaint and drawn attention of Court to paragraphs No. 7 and 8 as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and ultimately submitted that this is nothing but a device to buy time and offence is said to have committed for cheating and as such no interference is required to be made at this stage in the proceedings. It was also contended by learned counsel that while passing order impugned in the petition wherein reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge and since the exercise of jurisdiction based cogent reasons no irregularity is committed and therefore, the order does not deserve any interference in the interest of justice. It was also contended by learned counsel that while passing order impugned in the petition wherein reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge and since the exercise of jurisdiction based cogent reasons no irregularity is committed and therefore, the order does not deserve any interference in the interest of justice. It was also brought to the notice by learned advocate for the petitioner and contended that at the time when the transaction in question came to be entered into reflecting in very banakhat which is part of the record in which meager amount of GEB liability was represented but in fact actually not such and thereby complainant was never informed before transaction and later on it has been found that he will be liable to pay a difference amount to GEB and therefore, the learned counsel submitted that this is a fit case of cheating with the complainant and therefore, the learned sessions Judge has rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction. It was also brought to the notice of the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge based upon certain statements having been recorded of several persons and thereby prima facie it has been found that the issue involved is not that of purely, civil in nature but it is a specific offence committed against the present complainant and thereby the learned Advocate Mr. Mahesh Bhavasar has submitted not to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and not to even exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, having perused the record and having gone through the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge, this Court is prima facie of the view that sitting in an extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or even under provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detail inquiry or merit or demerit is not permissible. It is also reflected from the record that the actual duty with respect to payment consideration is seriously in dispute and it is not coming out clearly from any averments in complaint or order passed by the Court below whereby it can thoroughly be concluded whether any offence is made out prima facie or not especially when the learned Sessions Judge has given exhaustive consideration to the relevant record and passed an order in exercise of power under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This Court is of the view that such findings of fact arrived at by the Court is not required to be interfered with. 10. The court found that during the pendency of the petition, the amendment has taken place at the instance of petitioner might be realizing that the scope of challenging to the revisional order and therefore, for invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a permission was sought which appears to have been granted. The background of the fact is such that before analyzing, the Court is constrained to see even either in the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is it possible to this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction to set aside the complaint? To understand the recent trend of proposition of law on the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recent pronouncement of the Apex Court are worth to be taken into consideration. 11. To arrive at this conclusion, the Court is recalled of the proposition of law propounded by series of decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court which postulate that disputed questions of fact are not the subject matter of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that simply because the civil litigation is going on between the parties, it is not to be presumed that crime is not committed and must have been lodged just with a view to abuse the process of law. Few relevant decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court of a recent time worth to be taken note of in the background of present facts and circumstance. In a decision in case of N. Soundaram Vs. Few relevant decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court of a recent time worth to be taken note of in the background of present facts and circumstance. In a decision in case of N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj & Anr., reported in (2014) 10 SCC 616 , the Hon'ble Apex Court was confronted with the situation that a business transaction took place between the accused persons and the complainant's husband and in respect of that dispute pertaining to business transaction, accused persons along with several other accused entered into the premises and ransacked it. Therein, the controversy was pertaining to recovery of money and therefore, complaint was not justified to be entertained as it is purely of a civil nature. In the background of that circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the issue and propounded that power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously just to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. It has also been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court that inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and by holding so, the Hon'ble Apex Court exercising inherent powers set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the criminal prosecution by further directing the Magistrate to expedite the trial. Relevant extract of the said decision are in Para. 13, 14 and 15 which read, thus; "13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. [See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lai.] The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC. [See MCD v. Ram Kishan Tohtagi.] An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vindo Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora] 14. [See MCD v. Ram Kishan Tohtagi.] An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vindo Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora] 14. An overall perusal of the materials placed before us makes out a prima facie case against the accused which requires to be decided by conducting a proper trial. At this stage the High Court cannot analyse and meticulously consider the evidence and anticipate whether it will end up in conviction or acquittal. This is not the stage to decide whether there is any truth in the allegations made but to form an opinion whether on the basis of the allegation a cognizable offence or offences alleged has been prima facie made out. The guilt or otherwise of the accused can be proved only after conducting a full-fledged trial. In the circumstances, in our opinion, it is not proper for the High Court to interfere with the proceedings and quash the final report submitted by the police. 15. On the other hand we do not think that the High Court was right in opining that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. This is a case where serious allegations were made against the accused party. Just because the allegations involve the factum of recovery of money it cannot be concluded that the complaint is purely civil in nature when other serious allegations prima facie attract the penal provisions. In our considered opinion the High Court seriously misdirected itself in coming to a conclusion that it is for the competent civil court to decide the said appeal...... In our opinion, in the background and circumstances of this case the High Court should not have exercised the power under Section 482 CrPC which resulted in miscarriage of justice." 12. In another decision in case of Taramani Parakh Vs. In our opinion, in the background and circumstances of this case the High Court should not have exercised the power under Section 482 CrPC which resulted in miscarriage of justice." 12. In another decision in case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while analyzing the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., held that where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the Court should be reluctant to quash the proceedings, even on the premise that one or two ingredients having not been established prima facie and held that if there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of offence, the High Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Here, in the case on hand, it is prima facie established that incident in question as alleged in the complaint has happened and after thorough inquiry and investigation, a charge-sheet in detail came to be filed and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Taramati Parakh (supra) worth to be taken note of. The relevant extract of the said decision are in Para. 11 and 12 which read, thus; "11. Referring to earlier decisions, in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr., it was observed: "27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 482 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. 27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused. 27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender. 27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. 27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil wrong" with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. 27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge. 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. (Ref. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. (Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [ (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : AIR 1982 SC 949 ]; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234]; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892 ]; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059]; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513]; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [ (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703]; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400 : AIR 1998 SC 128]; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [ (1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497]; [pic] Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa [ (1995) 4 SCC 41 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 634]; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 : AIR 2000 SC 1869 ]; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala [ (2009) 14 SCC 466 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412]; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P. [ (2009) 7 SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 356]; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu [ (2009) 11 SCC 203 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297]; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar [(1987) 1 SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82]; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192 : AIR 1991 SC 1260 ]; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar [ (2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275]; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19]; Savita v. State of Rajasthan [ (2005) 12 SCC 338 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 571] and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat [ (2001) 7 SCC 659 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1361 : 2001 SCC (L & S) 1201]). 27.16. 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence." 12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014), it was observed: "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [ (2000) 5 SCC 207 ], it was observed:- "5.........A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. 10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. 10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [ (2000) 8 SCC 547 ], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 ], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr. [ (2011) 11 SCC 259 ]." 13. The Hon'ble Apex Cort has, in a decision in case of HMT Watches Limited Vs. M.A. Abida & Anr., reported in (2015) 11 SCC 776, laid down a proposition that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the disputed questions of fact are not to be determined. The issues related to that are worth to be allowed to be examined by the trial court after recording of an evidence and therefore, interference in the background of that disputed questions of fact by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was held to be unsustainable and hence, in no uncertain terms held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that same would be travelling beyond the jurisdiction. Relevant extract of the said decision are in Para. 11, 12, 13 and 14 which read, thus; "11. In Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited v. Rajvir Industries Limited and others, this Court has made following observations explaining the parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: - "17. The parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is 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 the well-known legal principles involved in the matter. 22. The parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is 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 the well-known legal principles involved in the matter. 22. Ordinarily, a defence of an accused although appears to be plausible should not be taken into consideration for exercise of the said jurisdiction. Yet 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 criminal [pic] proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused. While we are not oblivious of the fact that although a large number of disputes should ordinarily be determined only by the civil courts, but criminal cases are filed only for achieving the ultimate goal, namely, to force the accused to pay the amount due to the complainant immediately. The courts on the one hand should not encourage such a practice; but, on the other, cannot also travel beyond its jurisdiction to interfere with the proceeding which is otherwise genuine. The courts cannot also lose sight of the fact that in certain matters, both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings would be maintainable.' 12. In Rallis India Limited v. Poduru Vidya Bhushan and others, this Court expressed its views on this point as under:- "12. At the threshold, the High Court should not have interfered with the cognizance of the complaints having been taken by the trial court. The High Court could not have discharged the respondents of the said liability at the threshold. Unless the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence, it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion as to what was the date when the earlier partnership was dissolved and since what date the respondents ceased to be the partners of the firm." In view of the law laid down by this Court as above, in the present case High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by giving its opinion on disputed questions of fact, before the trial court. 13. 13. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that it was not a case of insufficiency of fund, as such, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not made out. We are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent NO. 1. In this connection, it is sufficient to mention that in the case of Pulsive Technologies P. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, this Court has already held that instruction of "stop payment" issued to the banker could be sufficient to make the accused liable for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Earlier also in Modi Cements Ltd. vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, this Court has clarified that if a cheque is dishonoured because of stop payment instruction even then offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act gets attracted. 14. For the reasons as discussed above, we find that the High Court has committed grave error of law in quashing the criminal complaints filed by the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section138 of the N.I. Act, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accepting factual defences of the accused which were disputed ones. Such defences, if taken before trial court, after recording of the evidence, can be better appreciated." 14. In the present facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that even at a stage where charge-sheet is filed, the Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. So ther eis no embargo in the present case and therefore, insistence upon that point of the learned counsel compels the Court to take an aid of another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Teeja Devi alias Triza Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ann, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and held that no interference be made with the investigation by police because after filing of the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the affected party must have a remedy against the report in accordance with law and therefore, looking to the scope propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to above, no power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was permitted to be exercised. Relevant extract contained in Para. 5 and 6 are worth to be taken note off and hence, reproduced hereunder: "5. It has been rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that ordinarily power Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. As per law settled by a catena of judgments, if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious. 6. In support of the aforesaid proposition learned Counsel for the State of Rajasthan placed reliance upon paragraphs 15 and 16 of judgment of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju, 2006 6 SCC 728 ." 15. Here, in the present case, after investigation charge-sheet has already been filed and series of disputed questions of facts are to be gone into and substantially, the offences which are alleged in the complaint are appearing to have occurred which the Investigating Authority has also found specifically by filing the charge-sheet and therefore, this being a position it is hardly appearing to this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The recent trend and the principle of law propounded on exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to the effect that this power is to be exercised in rarest of rare case and sparingly and cautiously to be used. Even in the recent decision in case of Amanullah & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 1871 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has not allowed the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and held that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by appreciating the material placed before it. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that at an appropriate stage of the proceedings, the petitioner will have a remedy to ventilate his grievance. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that at an appropriate stage of the proceedings, the petitioner will have a remedy to ventilate his grievance. No rowing inquiry or a mini trial is permitted in exercise of powers under Section482 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, even merits are also not to be examined in detail of the disputed factual background and therefore, considering overall set of circumstance, no interference is possible under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It also held that all the relevant statements and materials are to be allowed to examined at an appropriate stage. Therefore, considering this set of circumstance also, the Court is of the opinion not to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in the present set of circumstance. 16. In the aforesaid background of fact what is emerging is that the prosecution must be given a full chance to prove the case and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. powers are to be sparingly used. The reason is that after the investigation is over and submission of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the affected person has always right and the remedy against such report in accordance with law to agitate and therefore, simply because the allegations levelled in the complaint are partakes to some extent the character of civil nature it is not always to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. There are decisions to the effect that two parallel proceedings are also possible to proceed further namely civil as well as criminal and as such simply because there appears to be some element of civil nature complaint cannot be always quashed. Reverting back to the case on hand initially and essentially challenge was that the process was ordered to be issued for section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and while exercising such jurisdiction, the learned Sessions Judge has exercised his due discretion vested in law and it appears from the bare reading of the order that to arrive at such conclusion and pass an order there appears to be an application of mind as also valid reason and therefore, to intercept the prosecution at this stage of the proceeding is on the contrary miscarriage of justice. 17. 17. The counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to contend that case is of civil nature and therefore, in view of decision reported in case of Robert John D'Souza an others versus Stephe V. Gomes and another reported in (2015) 9 SCC 96 , the complaint in question be quashed. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the complaint in which there was a dispute pertaining to society and therefore, in that peculiar background of facts, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that complainant did not make out a case of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code whereas here in the present case, the facts are distinct and therefore, the ratio no doubt has to be respectfully seen but to apply the same as a straight jacket formula is appearing to be difficult. In another decision reported in case of Dalip Kaur and others versus Jagnar Singh and another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 a background of facts are altogether different and therefore, the judgment may not be any avail to the petitioner. 18. It appears from the record that an attempt is made to drag the issue in one way or the another since initially the challenge in the petition was for limited purpose of questioning of the validity of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge and thereafter the moment the Court entertains Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was placed into service of course it is permissible but looking to the manner in which the proceedings are dragged it appears that this is not a fit case to intercept the prosecution at this stage by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even in recent decision also in case of Amanullah & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 1871 the Apex Court has not allowed the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as stated above and has also held that High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by appreciating the material placed before it. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 1871 the Apex Court has not allowed the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as stated above and has also held that High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by appreciating the material placed before it. Therefore, in sum and substance the sufficiency of material the merit of the case the detailed examination of disputed questions of fact cannot be made a subject matter of inquiry and exercising of power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, looking the pronouncement on the issue of power under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court is of the opinion that the case on hand is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Where one ingredient or other is satisfy or not the said adjudication is not possible be to undertaken in inherent jurisdiction and therefore, parties to the proceedings are to be given opportunity to meet with the case and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure powers are not to be exercised in a routine manner - and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed by hooding that it is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction there appears to be no manifest injustice nor any abuse of process of law and therefore, this being the position the petition is dismissed and interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. 19. At this stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner requests the Court to extend the protection which has been operating upon so as to enable the petitioner to approach the higher forum and considering the fact that the same is granted and operating upon six weeks period is granted to enable the petitioner to approach the higher forum.