Nirmaljit Kaur, J.@mdashThis is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal complaint No. 259/2 of 17.11.2001 along with all consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint including the summoning order dated 10.04.2002.
2. The brief facts, as recorded by the Illaka Magistrate, Ludhiana, are that "the complainant is a retired Government servant. The accused who is well known to the complainant approached the complainant for loan and took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from complainant and complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- having No. 023147 dated 16.05.2000 from his account in Punjab and Sind Bank Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana. This amount was given to the accused on interest. The accused agreed to return the above said amount with interest at the earliest. The complainant approached the accused for return of his money and the accused in order to discharge his legal liability partially gave a cheque No. 130074 dated 28.09.2001 for Rs. 50,000/- from his account No. 101721 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. The accused while giving the cheque assured the complainant that the cheque will be honoured on its presentation in the Bank. The complainant deposited the said cheque in his account in Punjab and Sind Bank, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana. The said cheque was dishonored as there was not sufficient funds in the account of accused to honour the said cheque. The dishonored cheque along with memo that funds are insufficient was received by the complainant on 19.10.2001. Thereafter, the complainant issued registered notice dated 24.10.2001 to accused on his known correct address calling upon him to make the payment within 15 days but inspite of the notice the accused has failed to made the payment of the said cheque. Hence the present complaint."
3. While issuing notice of motion, this Court vide Order dated 24.04.2009, recorded as under:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the cheque on the basis of which proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were instituted against her was not signed by her, yet she is ready to settle the entire dispute by paying the amount of the cheque involved in the case. Learned Counsel further submits that any other expenses/damages as deem fit by the Court in lieu of interest and litigation expenses shall also be paid by the petitioner.
Notice of motion for 18.05.2009.
In case, the amount for which the cheque was issued i.e. Rs. 50,000/- is deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court within a week of receipt of certified copy of this Order, further proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed.
4. In pursuance to the Order dated 24.04.2009, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the trial Court. On 21.01.2010, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was ready to settle the dispute by paying Rs. 1.5 lacs, in total. Since, Rs. 50,000/- stood already deposited, learned Counsel for the petitioner was directed to bring a draft of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of the complainant, on the next date of hearing i.e. 11.02.2010. The respondent was also directed to be present in the Court on the next date. On 19.02.2010, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in pursuance to the Order dated 21.01.2010, brought a draft of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of the complainant. However, the matter was adjourned to enable the complainant to be present in the Court on 02.03.2010. The complainant appeared and stated that he was not satisfied with Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the payment of cheque amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and accordingly he refused to accept the same. However, the matter was adjourned to enable the respondent to reconsider his decision.
5. Today, learned Counsel for the respondent, on instructions from his client, stated that the respondent has refused the offer and does not wish to access the cheque. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however vehemently argued and submitted that the payment of amount towards the cheque does not mean that criminal offence is not made out.
6. In view of the above facts, it is not difficult to believe that the complainant is a money lender and is using the said cheque to blackmail and extract money from innocent people like the present petitioner who is ready to pay not only the amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards the cheque but also Rs. f,00,000/- over and above the said amount. It is obvious that the respondent is basically a money lender. He appears to be a habitual litigant. He has filed number of such criminal complaints. Some of the complaints have been detailed in para 3 of the petition and they are as under:
i. Gulzar Singh v. Subash Chander, before the Court of Sh. Charanjit Arora, Sessions Judge and the next date of this case is 06.03.2009.
ii. Gulzar Singh v. Ravi Kumar, before the Court of Sh. Ravi Kumar, Sessions Judge and the next date of this case is 02.03.2009.
iii. Gulzar Singh v. Mangat Ram, before the Court of Sh. Kawaljit Singh, Sessions Judge and the next date of this case is 01.04.2009.
iv. Gulzar Singh v. Subash, before the Court of Sh. Munish Singal, Sessions Judge and the next date of this case is 07.02.2009.
7. Reply has been filed by the respondent, wherein, it is not denied that he has filed similar cases against other persons as well. It appears that the only basis for filing of the present complaint is to harass and trouble the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid. The petitioner has further brought a draft of Rs. 1,00,000/- which the respondent has refused to accept. The amount offered by the petitioner is therefore two times more than the amount of the dishonored cheque.
8. Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as
22. In our view, there is nothing like unlimited arbitrary jurisdiction conferred on the High Court u/s 482 of the Code. The power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is well settled that Section 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power which the court possessed before the enactment of the Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
9. While exercising the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has, in given cases, quashed criminal proceedings, where, it is felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
10. Thus, in the facts of the present case, as narrated above, the continuation of the present proceedings amounts to misuse of the process of law. Although, the petitioner has denied her liability and has stated that the cheque, in question is not signed by her and in fact forged and fabricated, she is ready to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- towards dishonored cheque of Rs. 50,000/- to buy her peace. The amount offered is fair and just which would include a fair amount of interest as well as cost of litigation, if any. The offer of the payment takes care of liability, if any, at all and thus, continuation of the proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the facts of the present case, will only overburden the Courts with meaningless litigation and quashing of the complaint in the present case will not only prevent the abuse of process of law but also secure ends of justice.
11. Resultantly, the complaint No. 259/2 of 17.11.2001 along with all consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint including the summoning order dated 10.04.2002 are quashed subject to the petitioner depositing the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the trial Court which would be over and above Rs. 50,000/- already deposited before it within two weeks from the receipt of a copy of this Order. The respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the same by moving an appropriate application before the trial Court.
