IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55407 of 2006 J.P.S.GUJRAL, SON OF HARBANSH SINGH GUJRAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-C-127, GREATER KAILASH PART-I, NEW DELHI ------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DWARIKA PRASAD SON OF PARMESHWAR LAL, PROPRIETOR BURNWAL ENTERPRISES, QUAZI ROAD NO.4, P.S. KADAM KUAN, DISTRICT-PATNA ------------------ OPP.PARTIES ----------- For the petitioner: M/S M.P.Jha, Subodh Kumar Jha, and Madan Prasad Jha, Advocates For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate ----------- O R D E R The petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No.30 of 2004 has preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom as against him. One Dwarika Prasad, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, filed a complaint case being 2777(C) of 2003 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which on being transmitted to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the aforesaid Kadam Kuan P.S. case came to be registered under Sections 409, 420, 120B and 506 I.P.C. as also Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I.Act”). Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the accused persons holding posts in the Director’s cadre of a Company running in the name and style of “M/S. Medworld Technologies Pvt. Ltd.” It is alleged that the petitioner - 2 - along with the other accused came to Patna at the office of the informant on 15.2.2003 and having misrepresented about the Company’s products entered into a business deal with him by appointing him as C&F Agent of the Company and retained the deed of agreement with themselves . It is alleged that since the materials sent by the Company were of interior quality the informant sought to terminate the agreement and business with the Company. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs.5, 49,315/- fell due with the Company towards deposit and commission etc. payable by the Company to him for which six cheques dated 17.10.2003 were issued in the name of the informant’s Company all of which were dishonoured. Demand for payment met with refusal. It was accordingly alleged that all the accused had entered into a conspiracy to dupe and cheat the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the criminal proceeding as against him on the ground that he is neither a Director nor has any concern with the managerial affairs of the Company and that in the light of the Memorandum of Association of the Company, there are only two Directors, namely, accused nos.1 and 2 of the complaint petition. The alleged visit of the petitioner along with the other officials of the Company has also been denied. The further submission is that the six cheques alleged to have been dishonoured were neither issued by the petitioner as he was not the authorized signatory of the Company nor was he in any way concerned with the said cheques. On the aforesaid premise, it has been submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner was an abuse of the - 3 - process of the court, and as such, the F.I.R. in respect of the petitioner was fit to be quashed. It appears that informant Dwarika Prasad had filed Cr.W.J.C.No.352 of 2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to investigate Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No.30 of 2004 properly and arrest the accused persons, namely, respondent nos. 5 to 9. If further appears that by order dated 9.8.2005 the learned counsel for the State was directed to file a counter affidavit sworn by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna. It further appears that on a prayer being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the writ petition, Dwarika Prasad, the name of respondent no.7 , namely, J.P.S. Gujral, Director of Medworld Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner herein was permitted to be deleted from the records of the said writ petition by order dated 7.2.2007 and the writ petition itself was disposed of by order dated 27.4.2007 and the court being satisfied from the counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit that all steps were being taken to conduct the investigation in a proper way felt that there was no necessity for issuing further direction and disposed of the writ petition. No counter affidavit or show cause has been filed by Opp.Party no.2, although submissions were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that since the investigation was going on, the F.I.R. should not be quashed. Section 482 Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances - 4 - whereunder inherent jurisdiction may be exercised and it is well established principle of law that every court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent an abuse of the process of the court. Admittedly , as laid down in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1978 SC 47), the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was to be exercised very sparingly to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Then again in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy (A.I.R. 1977 SC 1489), it was observed that in a criminal case the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. In the instant case, it would appear that under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, a copy whereof is appended as Annexure-4 to the application, that the petitioner did not figure as one of the Directors of the Company and item 23 thereof has mentioned the names of two persons who shall be the first Director of the Company. Then again in the complaint petition itself, there is no specific allegation of the dishonoured cheques having been issued by the petitioner herein nor is there any allegation of his being a signatory on the aforesaid cheques .In this connection it would also be relevant to note that in the writ petition filed by the informant , the very petitioner therein , who - 5 - has prayed for deleting the name of this petitioner who had been impleaded as respondent no.7 therein. This presumably denotes that informant Dwarika Prasad had no grievance against the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the continuance of the case so far as the present petitioner is concerned would be an abuse of the process of the court. As laid down in State Vrs. Bhajanlal ( AIR 1992 SC 604) and series of decisions thereafter a broad guideline has been formulated relating to the exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. , one of which is that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or with a view to spite the accused due to private/personal grudge , the F.I.R. may be quashed. In the instant case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, his prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, appears to be travesty of justice and calls for interference. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the criminal proceeding so far as the petitioner is concerned arising out of Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No.30 of 2004 is hereby quashed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 22nd May,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.