SEBASTIAN JOSEPH Vs. VARGHEESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are father and daughter. They face indictment in two separate prosecutions, both launched by the first respondent/complainant, who is the brother-in-law of the first accused/father and the maternal uncle of the second accused/daughter. The cheques are for an amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs and for Rs.2,08,000/- respectively. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners have come to this Court with the prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against them.

(2.) What are the reasons? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there actually was a transaction between the first petitioner and the complainant, evidenced by Annex.C agreement, under which admittedly there is a liability of Rs. 8 Lakhs for the first petitioner/accused and his wife to the complainant/brother-in-law. The liability to repay Rs. 8 lakhs is not disputed. The signatures of the petitioners in both the cheques are also not disputed. The short contention that is raised is that the cheques were signed blank cheques handed over as security when Annex.C transaction was entered into. Annex.C does not make any reference to such cheques. It speaks of the liability to repay the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs within a period of two years from the date of execution of Annex.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that malafides is evident from the nature of the relationship between the parties, the nature of the recitals in Annex.C agreement, the nature of defence raised in the reply to the notice of demand as also from the nature of the vague denial of the averments in the reply notice in the complaints that have been filed. From these circumstances the learned counsel urges that the complaints are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mere fact that the allegations about necessary ingredients are there in the complaints cannot be a fetter on the powers of this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the petitioners are able to show that the complaints are on the face of it malafide and unjustified. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision in C.B.I. v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava ((2006) 7 SCC 188) in support of this proposition. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law urged by the learned counsel. The mere fact that the requisite averments are skilfully raised in the complaints is no reason for this Court not to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the court is convinced about malafides and oblique motives of the complainant.