IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 1222 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 16, 2009 Nisha D.Saraf ...........Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kumar Madhar ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner. . ** Sabina, J. Rakesh Kumar Madhar filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act that he had advanced Rs. 5,00,000/- as loan to Deepak S.Saraf. In the month of February,2004, a cheque bearing No. 682290 dated 15.8.2004 for a sum of Rs.8334/- drawn on Global Trust Bank Ltd. Mumbai was issued by Nisha D.Saraf wife of Deepak S.Saraf in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented for encashment with the Bank, the same bounced due to insufficient funds. Memo dated 21.8.2004 was sent by the Bank in this regard. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice on the accused dated 31.8.2004 which was received by her on 4.9.2004. Hence, complaint was filed. Petitioner-Nisha D.Saraf has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of complaint (Annexure P1) dated 20.9.2004 under Section 138 of the Crl. Misc. M No. 1222 of 2009 -2- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the Act' for short) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent but, as per the Office report, respondent refused to accept the same and it was affixed at the door of his house. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the receipt of notice, reply was sent by the petitioner on 11.9.2004 (Annexure P3) along with demand draft No. 281660 dated 11.9.2004. Despite this, the complaint has been filed just to harass the petitioner by the respondent. In the present case, the cheque in question is dated 15.8.2004 amounting to Rs. 8334/-. The same was presented for encashment and it bounced on 21.8.2004. Notice was sent by the respondent to the petitioner regarding payment of the amount in question on 31.8.2004 which was admittedly received by the petitioner on 4.9.2004. (The said fact is mentioned in para No.5 of the complaint Annexure P1). In response to the notice, petitioner sent a reply dated 11.9.2004 (Annexure P3) along with the demand draft of the amount in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a photocopy of the letter dated 18.2.2009 issued by Bank of Maharasthra which is taken on record as Mark `A'. A perusal of the same reveals that the draft sent by the petitioner along with the reply was encashed on 22.9.2004. In these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The Crl. Misc. M No. 1222 of 2009 -3- complaint in question was filed on 20.9.2004,whereas, the demand draft sent by the petitioner was encashed by the respondent on 22.9.2004. The reply along with demand draft was sent within the stipulated period. In Lakhwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 104, it was held in para Nos. 12 and 19 as under:- “12. The observations made above leave no manner of doubt that the wholesome jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be narrowed, confined or put in a strait-jacket.This inherent power can always be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The only constraint on the High Court is that since the power under this section is very wide, it should be exercised with great care and and caution. On the other hand, the court should not shy away from exercising this power when the accused persons are being persecuted in the guise of prosecution. Proceedings initiated and continued for oblique motives or to wreak vengeance on the other party are liable to be quashed. Proceedings are also liable to be quashed if even on the allegation being accepted in toto, prima facie no offence could be made out. 19. It, thus, become fairly evident that the court have consistently put an end to criminal proceedings which are an abuse of the process of Court. At the initial stage, Crl. Misc. M No. 1222 of 2009 -4- at the summoning stage and even after charges have been framed, the High Court has the inherent power to quash proceedings and to pass such orders as are necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains a non-obstante clause to the effect that nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit the powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, filing of the charge-sheet in Court does not in any manner affect the amplitude of the wholesome jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only rider being, that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof” It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR SC 608 that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused or 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, then the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed by the High Court exercising powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the Crl. Misc. M No. 1222 of 2009 -5- ends of justice. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint dated 20.9.2004 (Annexure P1) and notice dated 6.12.2008 (Anneuxre P4) and all further proceedings in consequent of the complaint are quashed. ( Sabina ) Judge March 16, 2009 arya