Case: Sesami Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Another Vs. State of Meghalaya &amp; Others

3. The abovementioned criminal petition was filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein (for short) praying in substance to quash the First Information Report (FIR) dated 12.10.2011 in Umiam Police Station Case No. 43(10) of 2011 (G.R. No. 185 of 2011) under SectionsIPC.4. At the outset, we may mention that all the facts are disputed barring the following.5. That, the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing ferrosilicon. It appears that pursuant to an agreement between the appellant company and the contesting respondents/accused, the appellant sold a huge quantity of ferrosilicon (the details of which are not available on record) to the contesting respondents/accused and despatched four consignments of ferrosilicon valued at Rs. 46,79,890/out of which the contesting respondents/accused paid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/and the balance amount of Rs. 36,79,890/was outstanding.6. On 12.10.2011, FIR No. 43(10) of 2011 under SectionsIPC, which is the subject matter of present case, came to be registered at Umiam police station at the instance of the appellant herein.7. On 31.10.2011, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Nongpoh Court issuedwarrants (NBWs) against the contesting respondents/ accused.8. The rest of the facts are in dispute. According to the appellant, after coming to know of the registration of the abovementioned case, the contesting respondents/accused entered into a compromise with the appellant and agreed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 71,34,489/towards the balance of the price of the material purchased by them along with the interest accrued on such delayed payment.9. It is the case of the appellant that on 3.11.2011, the contesting respondents/accused made payment of Rs. 40,00,000/and for the balance amount of Rs.an account payee cheque was issued. The said cheque was entrusted by the appellant to its banker for collection and on presentation to the payee banker the same was returned with an endorsementIn the meanwhile, the contesting respondents/accused filed the abovementioned criminal petition No. 68 of 2011. During the pendency of the said matter, in view of the dishonoured cheque mentioned above, the appellant initiated another criminal proceeding in crime case No. 87(S)/20 12 before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shillong.11. By impugned judgment, the abovementioned criminal petition No. 68 of 2011 came to be allowed quashing the first of the abovementioned two FIRs i.e. Case No. 43(10) of 2011 dated

Reasoning:
16. We are of the opinion that the petition filed by the contesting respondents under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an abuse of the process of the Court. As already noticed, the facts are seriously in dispute. The truth or otherwise of such facts can only be established by evidence at the trial. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR No. 43(10) of 2011 dated 12.10.2011. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court. The first respondent is directed to proceedFIR No. 43(10) of 2011 dated 12.10.2011 in accordance with law.The parties are the same as in the earlier appeal. The facts are interconnected and highly contested. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in quashing the case. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the case No. 87(S)/2012 to be proceeded with in accordance with law.