Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal writ petitions filed by Rishi Prabha Ranjitkumar Prasad and Ranjit Kumar Prasad seeking quashing of FIR No. 274 of 2018 registered at Chembur Police Station and the consequent Sessions Case No. 860 of 2019 pending before the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. The FIR was lodged by Krishna Mishra (respondent no. 2) alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The dispute arose from a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000 issued by the petitioners to the complainant, which was dishonoured. The complainant alleged that the cheque was issued towards repayment of a loan, while the petitioners contended that the cheque was given as security for a business transaction and that the signature on the cheque was forged. The petitioners argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process as the dispute was purely civil in nature and no legally enforceable debt existed. The court examined the materials on record, including the complaint and the reply to the statutory notice, and found that the complainant failed to provide any evidence of advancing the loan or the source of funds. The court also noted that the petitioners had disputed their signatures on the cheque and the complainant did not produce any expert evidence to prove the signatures. Relying on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and other precedents, the court held that the allegations did not disclose any criminal offence and the proceedings were liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process. The court allowed both petitions and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The High Court can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court when the allegations do not disclose any offence or are patently frivolous. (Paras 10-15) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Legally Enforceable Debt - The presumption under Section 139 NI Act is rebuttable and does not arise if the existence of a legally enforceable debt is itself disputed and not proved. (Paras 16-20) C) Indian Penal Code - Forgery - Sections 467, 468, 471 - Signature Dispute - When the accused denies signature on the cheque and the complainant fails to provide evidence of signature, the prosecution for forgery is unsustainable. (Paras 21-25) D) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - Where the dispute is purely civil in nature and criminal proceedings are initiated to pressurize the accused, the High Court may quash the proceedings. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of cheque bounce and allegations of forgery should be quashed as an abuse of process of law when the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt and the signature on the cheque was disputed.
Final Decision
Both criminal writ petitions are allowed. FIR No. 274 of 2018 registered at Chembur Police Station and Sessions Case No. 860 of 2019 pending before the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, and all consequential proceedings, are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- abuse of process of court
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
- legally enforceable debt
- presumption under Section 139 NI Act
- forgery of signature
- standard of proof at quashing stage
