2008 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 159
(DELHI HIGH COURT)
V.B. GUPTA, J.
Ramji Lal Vs. Amit Ved (Deceased By Lr)
Crl. Misc. (M) C. No.2787 of 2007
7th September, 2007
Petitioner Counsel: DEVENDER DAGAR, R. P. NAFRIA
Criminal P.C. (1973), S.482 - Negotiable Instruments Act (1881) S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint pending in Court since 2002 - Petition for quashing it filed after a lapse of five years - Plea that payment was already made to the father of complainant is an after thought and the same can be looked into by trial Court - Belated petition liable to be dismissed with heavy costs of Rs.5,000/-. (Paras 7-9)
-The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of Criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 which is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate since 2002.
2. The respondent/complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner on the allegation that petitioner has issued four cheques for Rs.40,000/- each to the respondent, in order to repay the loan and the said cheques were dishonoured on presentation.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no dealing whatsoever, with the respondent/complainant and no loan was ever taken from him. The cheques in question which were given as security have been misused by the complainant in connivance with his father and the cheques were given blank and only the amount was filled up by the petitioner and the petitioner had already repaid the loan. Hence, the present complaint is frivolous and is liable to be quashed.
"482. Saving of inherent power of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
(i) to give effect to any order under the Code,
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
(1) the injustice which comes to light should be of a grave and not of a trivial character,
(2) it should be palpable and clear and not doubtful; and
(3) there exists no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief.
7. Keeping in view these circumstances, it has to be seen as to whether present petition is at all maintainable or not. Admittedly, the petitioner had issued the cheques in favour of the respondent/complainant which is clear from the photocopies of the cheques placed on record. The plea taken by the petitioner before this Court is that these cheques and payment were given to the father of the complainant, is an after thought and it is the defence of the petitioner which can be taken up before the trial Court.
8. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 was filed in the year 2002 and now after five years, all of a sudden petitioner has come with the present petition. No explanation is forthcoming as to what prevented the petitioner from approaching this Court earlier. It is well settled that the benefit of this Section should not be extended to a person who do not approach the Court at the earliest possible opportunity.
9. The present petition seeking quashing of the complaint case pending trial for more than five year's is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs and as such the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.