HASMUKH HANSRAJ GALA Vs. ABHAY MUKUND BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant in both the applications seek the relief of quashing the Criminal Complaint Case Nos. 391 of 2000 and 664 of 2000 instituted by respondent No. 1 in the courts of J. M. F. C. at Nagpur and Darwha respectively for the offence punishable under section 500 of Indian Penal code in both the matters, common questions are involved and therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Brief facts are required to be stated as under : the applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of chemicals since about 20 years whereas respondent No. 1 is said to be the director of the Company which is named and styled as M/s Nagpur Detergent Pvt. Ltd. The applicant had business dealing with the said company. The managing Director of the said company had issued the cheques for payment of consideration for the material supplied by the applicant. In all, 14 cheques weie bounced on different dates and therefore the applicant had filed criminal prosecution against respondent No. 1 as well as against the Managing director and other two Directors of the Company The first cnmmal complaint was filed on 20-8-1996 which was numbered as Cnmmal Case No. 480/s/97 and the other criminal complaint was filed in the month of October, 1996 which was numbered as 534/s/97. Both the complaints were filed at Bombay on the allegation that the respondent No. 1/accused had committed the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code read with section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act). The Metropolitan magistrate had issued process against all the accused for the aforesaid offences and thereafter the respondent No. 1 has filed the criminal complaint on 14-7-2000 which was numbered as Cnmmal Case No. 391 of 2000 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, and the second cnminal complaint was filed on 5-8-2000 in the Court of learned J. M. F. C. at Darwha against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 500 of Indian penal Code. The learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioner in both the criminal cases. Therefore the applicant has filed these applications for quashing of both the criminal prosecution.

(3.) Mr. Voditel, learned Counsel, for the applicant contended that the respondent no 1 had alleged in the criminal prosecution filed at Bombay and that he knew that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were the Directors of the Company and they were the persons in charge of the business of the company and were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company and that they were dealing in detergent at Nagpur and they handed over to him three cheques towards the discharge of their liability and that the aforesaid cheques were issued by the accused persons in part discharge of their liability and they having failed to make the payment in spite of the receipt of the said notice, deemed to have committed the offence punishable under section 420 of indian Penal Code read with section 138 of the Act. He contended that these allegations mentioned in the criminal prosecution filed at Bombay does not per se amount to defamation within the meaning of section 499 of Indian penal Code, more particularly in explanation 4th and 5th and exception 8th and 9th. He contended that the criminal complaints lodged by respondent no. 1 at Nagpur and Darwha Courts are only filed to give counter blast to the prosecution instituted by the applicant and only for the harassment. He contended that if the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is allowed to continue, it would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In support of these submissions he relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of (Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadeo Channabasappa and others) , 2000 (6) s. C. C. 120 wherein it was held that where unscrupulous litigants adopt dubious methods, including filing of fraudulent litigation, to defeat the order of courts, the Court must take serious note and pass appropriate orders and issue necessary directions, which may include imposing of exemplary costs.