High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed; petitioners to raise contentions dur...
Nazar N.K. v. State of Kerala and M/S George & Company
Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO.9393 OF 2022
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. Badhrudeen
- Judgment Date
- 2022-12-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petition is dismissed. The High Court reiterates that quashing is an extraordinary remedy, and not appropriate where the allegations, even if taken at face value, may constitute a criminal offence; however, the court leaves room for trial to determine the authenticity of the disputed transactions. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court and seek bail within ten days from today, with the warrant stayed till 02.01.2023. If bail is not sought or obtained, coercive steps may be taken as per law.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed; petitioners to raise contentions during trial; bail directions issued; stay of warrant until 02-01-2023.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Nazar N.K.
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- M/S George & Company
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • B. Pramod
- • Biju Vigneswar
- • Aswathi Suresh
- • Ayyappadas V
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri G. Sudheer
- • Reagan Thimothy
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by Nazar N.K., the petitioner/accused, challenging Annexure A-1 the complaint in ST No.141/2019 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. The High Court undertakes a standard wholistic scrutiny of the petition to quash at the threshold, noting that the dispute centers on whether the cheque amount reflected in the complaint corresponded to a genuine liability or whether that liability had already been discharged. The petitioner asserts that the complaint contains inconsistent statements and the annexures (accounts ledgers and bank statements) demonstrate repayment of the amount, implying that no offence is made out and the liability was discharged. The court recalls the seminal principles on quashing a private complaint as laid down by the Supreme Court, including that a complaint can be quashed if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, if there is abuse of process or malice, and that quashing should be sparing and not used to stifle legitimate prosecution. The court cites several precedents beginning with Madhavrao Scindia and Bhajan Lal, and extends to later rulings such as Duncans Agro, Rajendra Agrawalla, Rajesh Bajaj, Medchl, Hridaya Verma, Krishnan, and Zandu Pharma to frame the test. It concludes that this is not a fit case for quashing and the petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to raise contentions during trial. The court also directs the petitioner to appear and seek bail within ten days, staying execution of the warrant until 02.01.2023, with coercive steps to follow if bail is not sought.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Quashing a complaint is warranted where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence (Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988)
- A complaint may be quashed where it is a clear abuse of process or where mala fides/malice exist or where allegations are absurd and improbable (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992)
- Power to quash should be exercised sparingly and with caution (Bhajan Lal; general principle)
- The complaint need not verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients; if the factual foundation is laid, quashing is unwarranted (Madhavrao Scindia)
- A civil dispute may involve a criminal offence; the test is whether the allegations disclose a criminal offence (Madhavrao Scindia, follow-on principles)
- Quashing is not to stifle a legitimate prosecution (Bhajan Lal; caution)
- Mere commercial transaction or breach of contract may still involve a criminal offence if facts disclose one (principles cited in the cited rulings)
- Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E.Ltd. (2000)
- Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000)
- M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001)
- Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the complaint is built on inconsistent statements and that the annexures including bank and ledger statements establish that the cheque amount was repaid and the liability discharged. Therefore, on the face of the allegations, no criminal offence is prima facie made out; the trial cannot be avoided on a mere plea and the complaint requires quashing at the threshold.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that the petition should be decided on the established principles for quashing; the complaint must be examined as a whole, not its merits in detail; though referred to as commercial, the allegations may still constitute a criminal offence; the matter requires trial and the court should not prematurely quash merely on assertions of discharge of liability.
Cited Precedents (10)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre | 1988(1) SCC 692 | Positive | Lays down the general test for quashing a private criminal complaint. |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal | 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 | Positive | Provides the concept of abuse of process and the limited scope of quashing. |
| Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill | 1995(6) SCC 194 | Positive | Supports the principle that a private complaint may be quashed where the pleading does not disclose prima facie offence. |
| Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. | 1996(5) SCC 591 | Positive | Reinforces caution in using quashing to avoid legitimate prosecutions. |
| State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla | 1996(8) SCC 164 | Positive | Affirms the test to determine whether allegations amount to offence. |
| Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi | 1999(3) SCC 259 | Positive | Reiterates the scope of quashing and the need for prima facie offence. |
| Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E.Ltd. | 2000(3) SCC 269 | Positive | Part of the cited precedents establishing quashing guidelines. |
| Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar | 2000(4) SCC 168 | Positive | Supports the multi-factor assessment for quashing. |
| M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh | 2001(8) SCC 645 | Positive | Contributes to the test for quashing in commercial transactions. |
| Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque | 2005(1) SCC 122 | Positive | Further elaborates the standard for quashing and criminal-offence threshold. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Nazar N.K. v. State of Kerala and M/S George & Company and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.BADHARUDEEN**
**THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/1ST POUSHA, 1944**
## **CRL.MC NO.9393 OF 2022**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 141/2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL**
**MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**NAZAR N.K., AGED 44 YEARS S/O. KAMALUDHEEN, NANEKKATTU HOUSE, VAYALAR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 536, PROPRIETOR, N.K. STEELS, THURAVUR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688532 BY ADVS. B.PRAMOD BIJU VIGNESWAR ASWATHI SURESH AYYAPPADAS V**
## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 M/S. GEORGE & COMPANY, REGISTERED OFFICE, NEAR SUN HOSPITAL, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER MR.REAGAN THIMOTHY, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, SAKTHAN NAGAR P.O. THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 SRI.G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**CRL.MC NO. 9393 OF 2022**
**2**
## **O R D E R**
## Dated this the 22[nd] day of December, 2022
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for convenience) and the prayer herein is to quash Annexure A-1 complaint in S.T.No.141/2019 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the complaint, the complainant raised inconstant statements and also as per Annexure A-2, A-3 and A-4 statements of account, it could be noticed that the amount covered by the cheque was repaid and the liability was discharged.
4. I have perused Annexure A-2, A-3 and A4 as well as the averments in the complaint. It could be gathered that, if
**CRL.MC NO. 9393 OF 2022**
**3**
at all the accused/the petitioner has a case that there was no transaction and execution of the cheque in question, or else, the amount had been paid and the liability had been discharged, these all are purely matters of evidence and the trial court alone can consider the same based on the evidence to be adduced by both sides. In such a case, quashment of the complaint at the threshold could not be justified.
5. The circumstances in which a prosecution launched on the basis of a private complaint can be quashed is well settled. In the decisions reported in **[1988(1) SCC 692], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; [1995 (6) SCC 194], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; [1996 (5) SCC 591], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.; [1996 (8) SCC 164], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla; [1999 (3) SCC 259], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi; [2000 (3) SCC 269], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v.**
**CRL.MC NO. 9393 OF 2022**
**4**
**Biological E.Ltd.; [2000 (4) SCC 168], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar; [ 2001(8) SCC 645], M.Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; [2005(1) SCC 122], Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque,** the Apex Court summarised the principles while quashing a complaint. The principles are as under:
_(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused._
_For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint._
**CRL.MC NO. 9393 OF 2022**
**5**
_(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable._
_(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution._
_(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence._
**CRL.MC NO. 9393 OF 2022**
**6**
_(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not._
6. Thus, the law is no more res integra on the point that a complaint can be quashed only when it falls under the category of cases as per the principles set out by the Apex Court, extracted herein above. Therefore, this is not a fit case to quash the complaint.
**CRL.MC NO. 9393 OF 2022**
**7**
In view of the matter, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to raise their contentions during trial.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Non Bailable Warrant against the accused/the petitioner is on the verge of execution. However, the petitioner is ready to concede the jurisdiction of the trial court and seek bail.
In view of this submission, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the trial court and seek bail, within a period of ten days from today and execution of the warrant shall stand stayed till 02.01.2023. If the petitioner fails to appear and to move for bail as directed, the learned Magistrate shall go with coercive steps as per law.
**Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE**
nkr
**CRL.MC NO. 9393 OF 2022**
**8**
## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9393/2022**
|**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|
|---|---|
|**Annexure A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T. NO.**|
||**141/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDL.**|
||**CJM, THRISSUR**|
|**Annexure A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE**|
||**LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM**|
||**01.04.2017 TO 26.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE**|
||**2ND RESPONDENT /COMPLAINANT TO THE**|
||**PETITIONER UPON CLOSURE OF THE**|
||**TRANSACTIONS**|
|**Annexure A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF LEDGER**|
||**ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND**|
||**RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 23.05.2018**|
||**TO 08.02.2019**|
|**Annexure A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE**|
||**PETITIONER (A/C. NO. 37113151541,**|
||**STATE BANK OF INDIA, SOUTH KUTHIATHODE**|
||**BRANCH) SHOWING THE TRANSFER OF**|
||**AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE A-3**|
||**LEDGER**|