The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 5347 of 2023 Prafulla Kumar Lenka …. Petitioner Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Sunil Kumar Nayak …. Opp. Party CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 21.12.2023 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to quash the proceeding in 324 of 2019 pending before the J.M.F.C., Chandikhol. 3. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a businessman and he was in need of money to run his business at Chandikhol. The Opposite Party known to the Petitioner and therefore the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party to lend him some money to run his business. The Opposite Party conceded to his approach and gave him some money. The Petitioner to liquidate/repay the money had given two numbers of blank cheque to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party deposited the cheque in his bank mentioning higher amount than the money given to the Petitioner and the cheque given to the Petitioner got dishonoured Page 1 of 4 // 2 // with endorsement “insufficiency of fund”. Being aggrieved by the dishonour of the cheque, the Opposite Party having processed the statutory compliance filed a complaint before the court registered as I.C.C. Case No.324 of 2019. The learned court having taken cognizance of offence issued summons to the Petitioner. Pursuant to the summon issued by the Petitioner to the court, the Petitioner and Opposite Party negotiated with each other into an agreement that the Petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- only to the Opposite Party and upon receipt of the same he will withdraw the case. 4. According to the Petitioner, pursuant to the agreement he paid Rs.1,50,000/- and promised to pay balance amount of Rs.85,000/-. The Petitioner paid Rs.40,000/- on 03.02.2022, Rs.20,000/- on 16.02.2022, Rs.6,500/- on 21.05.2022 and Rs.3,500/- on 23.03.2022 through Phone-Pay transactions and Rs.15,000/- by cash on 02.03.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the complainant having received the money ought to have withdrawn the complaint as per the agreement. Having not done so whereas the Petitioner having paid the entire dishonoured cheque amount seeks the indulgence of the Court that further proceeding in the matter would abuse of process of law since it would fate no reason. 6. The very fact as to the money having paid to the Petitioner has not been acknowledged by the complainant in absence of any authentic document as regard the acknowledgement of the complainant to have received the money and further that a joint application is filed in the shape of affidavit not only acknowledging Page 2 of 4 // 3 // the money to have received but a settlement to have reached between the parties for not proceeding with the complaint reached this Court to in laterally believe the Petitioner to have complied the mandate of the provision in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. V. Biological E. Ltd., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 269 , the Apex Court have held as follows:- “Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it do not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. To exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety will have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken critical consideration without examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. The truth or falsity of the allegations would not be gone into by the Court at this earliest stage. Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the trial. into any Page 3 of 4 // 4 // 10. It is only in cases when the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the accused nor do they disclose the ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused or the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised to quash the prosecution, is also the view in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (supra). 7. As held above, while quashing the proceeding it is required to examine if the complaint do not prima facie disclose a case against the Petitioner and/or that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the offence. In the instant case admittedly it is not the case of the Petitioner that the complaint neither discloses the case involving him nor the narration made there in does not constitute the offence. 8. As far as the settlement of the matter in dispute is concerned, in absence of any affidavit filed jointly by the parties, this Court cannot act upon the version of the Petitioner alone even otherwise if the matter has already been settled there is no impediment for the Petitioner to confront it to the complainant that relates to a factual aspect cannot be gone into in this proceeding. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The CRLMC stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) KC Bisoi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KRUSHNA CHANDRA BISOI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: orissa high court Date: 22-Dec-2023 16:55:42 Page 4 of 4