DUNCANS TEA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Notices were issued to respondent -opposite party No. 2 who is the complainant. The notices have been reportedly validly served on opposite party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 has not chosen to appear. State is present.

(2.) THE present writ application has been filed by the petitioners who have been made accused in the complaint case instituted by respondent -opposite party No. 2. A bare perusal of the complaint would show that respondent -opposite party No. 2 admits that he was a dealer of the petitioner - Company that is Duncans Tea Limited and in course of business, he had issued certain cheques which bounced. He had then given certain blank cheques to the petitioner -Company which the Company is said to have wrongly utilised instead of settling his account on termination of his dealership. It is, thus, alleged that the petitioners committed criminal offence for which they should be prosecuted. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC and issued summons. Even before summons could be served, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued warrant of arrest without awaiting service report. It is under these circumstances that the present writ application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal prosecution of the petitioners on the sole ground that if the allegations, as made in the complaint, are accepted in their entirety, no criminal offence is disclosed.

(3.) IT may also be mentioned here that the petitioners were issued a cheque by respondent No. 2. That cheque bounced. They instituted proceeding in Kolkata. When notices were issued and served on opposite party No. 2, the present complaint case has been lodged. On perusal of the aforesaid complaint, it is manifestly clear that all it discloses is a pretence of civil dispute. Merely by crafty drafting a dispute essentially civil in nature cannot be turned into a dispute of a criminal nature. Such a step would clearly be an abuse of process of Court as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others since reported in (2000)2 Supreme Court Cases 636: In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter.