1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 76657-M of 2006 Date of Decision: 20.11.2008 *** Jagdish Rai .. Petitioner Vs. Daljit Singh Walia & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate for respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the orders dated 18.3.2006 and 14.9.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh and the then learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib respectively by dint of which the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the revisional Court dismissed his revision preferred against the said order dated 18.3.2006. The facts enumerated from the petition are that the petitioner- complainant Jagdish Rai, being one of the partner, filed a criminal complaint seeking summoning of respondents for the commission of offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC with the allegations that their firms M/s S.R.D. Gases and M/s Sant Ram Ramji Dass Iron Steel were having their accounts having cash credit limit against hypothecation of their property and machines, with the respondent No.2 bank, whose Manager is respondent No.1 Daljit Singh. It has further been alleged that during the business transaction respondent No.1 got annoyed with the petitioner and got issued a legal notice and thereby raised a false demand of Rs.8,51,989/- due from them as on 30.9.2002 and also threatened not to dispose of or dealt with the securities, without the prior consent of the Bank. They replied the 2 said legal notice and lateron the respondents filed a civil suit against them, this time showing the amount due as Rs.2,52,034.50 Paise as on 29.11.2002. According to the complainant all this was done intentionally by the respondents not only to harm the complainant but also to cheat them with fraudulent/ dishonest intention. In preliminary evidence the complainant examined himself as PW1 besides examining Sunil Kumar and Sukhdev singh as PW2 and PW3 respectively. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by observing that mere mentioning of wrong amount in the notice does not make out a case for summoning of the accused under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and the learned Revisional Court while dealing with the revision of the petitioner also concluded in the same fashion that the respondents have only acted in discharge of their official duty and no criminal liability can be fastened upon them for incorrect mentioning of due amount and, as explained above, dismissed the revision. Hence, this instant petition. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents, it has been contended that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or irregularity and are well-reasoned orders, since the evidence led by the petitioner do not disclose any commission of offence against the respondent-accused. It has also been contended that since the petitioner has availed the remedy of revision, therefore, the instant petition is barred. Hence dismissal of instant petition has been sought. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper book carefully. The grouse of the petitioner is that the accused forged the notice dated 5.10.2002 and raised a demand of Rs. 8,51,989/-, with fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat the complainant. It may be mentioned here that pursuant to notice dated 5.10.2002, in its reply, the positive case of the petitioner was that instead of Rs.8,51,989/- as demanded, a sum of Rs.2,35,929/- is due towards him. This led the respondent No.2 Bank to institute a suit for recovery of Rs.2,52,034.50 paise against the petitioner through respondent No.1. But merely the fact that correct amount was not mentioned in the notice, does not lead to the 3 conclusion that there was dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the respondents in getting the said notice issued so as to cheat the petitioner, as alleged. Admittedly, the petitioner had not been parted with any amount pursuant to the impugned notice and it is also not in dispute that what had been done by the respondents was in discharge of their official duties and obviously no personal benefit could be derived by them by claiming a wrong amount. Rather it appears from the pleadings that there is some dispute between the parties regarding settling of the accounts and the petitioner was claiming exaggerations therein. All these rightly led the Courts below to conclude that the instant complaint preferred by the complainant is nothing but just an abuse of process of law. There is no dispute that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the cases in which the High Court can interfere in exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but the same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and has only to be exercised in rarest and exceptional cases and the present cases do not fall in any of the category. The orders passed by the courts below are legally perfect and suffers from no illegality or perversity and no interference is called for. The petition accordingly stands dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 20,2008 Jiten