Crl. M. No. M- 14631 of 2009 v. M/s Rajit Paints Ltd. Having their registered office at Gill Road

the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is trite that jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders, as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, has Crl. M. No. M- 14631 of 2009 7 to be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry, whether the allegations, in the complaint, are likely to be established by the evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, when the evidence comes before him. Though, it is neither possible, nor advisable to lay down any inflexible Rules, to regulate such jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear that it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction, to quash a proceeding, at the stage of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, it is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out in the complaint, or charge-sheet, do not, in law constitute, or spell out any offence, and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or not. Even in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1), it was held that in following category of cases, the High Court, in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of the process of Crl. M. No. M- 14631 of 2009 8 any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases: 1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence, or make out a case against the accused. 2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non- Crl. M. No. M- 14631 of 2009 9 cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case Crl. M. No. M- 14631 of 2009 10 and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases, enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified.

8. The inherent powers, with which the Criminal Courts, are clothed are to make such orders, as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Though the power is unrestricted and undefined, it should not be used capriciously or arbitrarily, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, to do real and substantial justice, for which alone the Courts exist. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, let us see, as to whether, the petitioner deserves the indulgence of the Court or not. At the time of deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is only required to, look into the allegations, contained in the complaint, as to whether, an offence, is constituted therefrom against the accused or not. What was the defence of the accused, is a matter of evidence. The plea of defence of the accused, at the time of deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken into consideration. Undisputedly, M/s RMI Cycles Ltd. is a limited Company. The petitioner was also one of the Directors at the relevant time of the said Company. Even after the Memorandum of Family Arrangement, referred to above, he remained to be the non- Crl. M. No. M- 14631 of 2009 11 Executive Director of M/s.RMI Cycles Ltd.. If the complainant entered into a compromise with other Directors, as they discharged the liability, to the extent of their shares, and withdrew complaint against them, that did not mean that the complaint against the petitioner, could be dismissed. The petitioner, being the Director of M/s RMI Cycles Limited, was equally responsible for making payment of the amount of the cheques, to the extent of his share, which were issued by the Company. Dropping of proceedings, against other Directors, on the basis of the statement, made by the Counsel for the complainant, cannot lead to the quashing of the complaint against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the disputed facts, cannot be adjudicated upon, in the proceedings, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are summary in nature. The disputed facts can only be adjudicated upon by the trial Court, during the course of the trial. The allegations, contained in the complaint, constitute an offence, punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the continuation of complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, would not amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court . The same are not liable to be quashed. Crl. M. No. M- 14631 of 2009 12

9. For the reasons, recorded above, the petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed.

10. The Registry is directed to comply with the order immediately for compliance. March 10, 2010 dinesh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE