Allowed

Canara Bank, T.S.R.Complex, Secunderabad and 17 Others v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor, Hyd and 2 Others

Telangana HC6 Sept 2022CRLP/702/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 120-B, 406, and 420 IPC following a private complaint alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy. The Court held that the complaint converted a civil dispute regarding a bank guarantee into a criminal case, which was an abuse of process, particularly as the matter was already sub judice in civil appeals.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 60 of 2011 registered against 18 petitioners.

Canara Bank, T.S.R.Complex, Secunderabad and 17… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 702 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

Canara Bank, Represented by its AGM IFB H.No.1-7-'1 , ll Floor, S.P.Road, T.S. R.Complex, Secunderabad.

¶9

Mr.Thripathy, General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Vittalwadi, Hyderabad.

¶10

Mr.Rajan, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, T.S.R.Complex, Secunderabad.

¶11

Mr.Chandrashekar RAo, Manager, Canara Bank, T.S.R.Complex, Secunderabad.

¶12

Shri Rama Rao, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, T.S.R.Complex, Secunderabad.

¶13

Shri Mr.S.Raman, Chairman cum Managing Director, Canara Bank, H.O.^'1 12, J.C.Road, Bangalore.

¶14

Mr.Jagadish Pai K.L., Executive Director, Canara Bank, H.O. 112, J.C.Road, Bangalore.

¶15

B. Shri H.S.U.Kamath, Executive Director, Canara Bank, H.O. 1'12, J.C.Road, Bangalore.

¶16

Dr.Thomas Mathew, Director Rept. by GOI JS (CM) Ministry of Finance, GOI Department of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi - 1

¶17

10.Shri G.Padmanabhan, Director RBl, GGM., D/o. Payment and Settlement Systems, Central Office, Building 14th Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,

¶18

Shri Devender Dass Rustagi, Gen.Sec., Canara Bank WE, Union Canara Bank Circle Office, Nehru Palace, New Delhi.

¶19

Shri Khalid Luqman Bilgrami, Part Time Director, Chartered Accountant, 1042, Sector-A, Pocket-A, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 1 10070

¶20

13.Shri S.Shabbeer Pasha, Part Time Director. No. 96/8, Al-Ameen Apartments, First Cross, South End Road, Bangalore - 004

¶21

14.Shri Pankaj Gopalji Thacker, Part Time Director, S.A.X-135, Adipur, Kutch, Gujarat.

¶22

15.Sri P.V.Maiya, Director, Rept. Shareholders, Flat No. 106, Sowmya Springs, 5/2, Dewan Madhav Rao Road,

¶23

16.Shri Sunil Gupta, Shareholder Director House No. 82, Sector 17, Panchkula^- 134109, Haryana.

¶24

Mr.Mahesh Kumar Singh, Asst. Gen.Manager T.S.R.Complex, Secunderabad.

¶25

Mr.Mani Maran, Officer Employee Director, Manager, llT Branch, Chennai.

¶26

...PETITIONERS

¶27

AND

¶28

The State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶29

Atlantic lntertrade lnfo Pvt. Ltd., Atlantic lntertrade Ltd., U.K., Rept. by its Director Ch.B.Chowdary, Plot No. 722, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Adjacent lane Hotel Chuttneys, Hyderabad.

¶30

Atlantic Intertrade Ltd., U.K., Rept. by B.V.Bhaskar Krishna Chartered Accountant, Semi Finance in nature Plot No. 722, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Adjacent lane Hotel Chuttneys, Hyderabad.

¶31

...COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FlR.No.60 ot 2O11 dated 21-01-2011 on the file of the Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad and quash the same with examplenary costs.

¶33

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLPMP. NO:652 OF 2011)

¶34

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in respect of the FlR.No.60 of 2011 daled 21-01-2011 on the file of the Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad,^pending disposal of CRP.

¶35

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Sairam Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

¶38

]'HE IION'BLE Dr. JUSI'ICE C. RAI)IIA R\NI

¶39

CRIMINAL PETITION No.702 OF 2011

¶40

OIIDER:

¶41

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners No. I to l8 to quash theproceedings in Crime No.60 of 2011 dated 21.01 .2011 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad

¶42

The case of the respondents No.2 and 3 as per the private complaint filed by them before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad was that M/s.X Design Ventures Private Limited approached the complainants for development of E-book solutions and obtained work order. The complainants insisted on unconditional Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs.l.00 crore towards its performance of the work (development) contract as per international trade and commerce practices. Accordingly, M/s.X Design Ventures Private Limited approached Canara Bank Prime Corporate Branch, Secunderabad and deposited Rs.1.00 crore with the bank for issuance of unconditional bank guarantee in favour of the complainant. Canara Bank Prime Corporate Branch (formerly known as Industrial Finance Branch) issued Unconditional Bank Guarantee #2657 BG 1302003 dated 08.09.2003 for USD $2,17,000 equivalent to INR Rs.1.00 crore having validity^period of

¶43

1 D..GRR.J Crt.P. No.702 oI)01I

¶44

one year i.e. upto 07.09.2004. Relying on the unconditional bank guarantee issued bt, the Canara Bank, the complainant and its tiusiness associates issued letters of credit in favour of M/s.X^{DesignVentures} Private Lirnited.^'l'he performance of X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd was unsatisfactory in dclivering the development of the E-books, hence, the complainant invoked the bank guarantee vide its letter dated 08.01.2004 within its validity pr:riod. Even though the complainant invoked the bank guarantee, the Canara Bank did not pay the amount immediately in terms of the bank guarantee with an ulterior motive ancl colluded with tWs.X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and instigated it to file cases against the complainant in the lower court to evade its payment obligation and could succeed its suits in lower court. The X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd., was not entitled to raise the legal clairn without performing its part of the contract with the complainant. The complainant filed civil revision petition and I.A No.1408 of 2006 befbre the High Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, as the cornplainant's counsel was appointed as a Magistrate, he could not attend the court and the said CRP was dismissed due to nonappearance of the cor.rnsel. The said fact was brought to the notice of the complainant very late. Since the bank guarantee issued by the Canara Bank was an unconditional one, it ought to have paid the fult value of the

¶45

v //

¶46

¶47

DI GRR.J 3 (i P No.7tD ol tu

¶48

sam'e to the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions olthe contract with the complainant. The Ornbudsmen also recognized the statutory entitlement of the complainant and directed the Canara Bank to honour its obligation but without fulfilling itr; obligation, the Canara Bank honoured the bank guarantee to half of its nronetory value and when the complainant demanded the Canara bank, the officials of the bank were evading to honour the bank guarantee in lul.l for one reason or the other Thus, the canara bank and its officials in crirninal conspiracy deprived the complainant from exercising its legal and statutory clairn and illegally retained 55% of the guarantee amount u,ith an ulterior motive and committed the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. The nonpayment of the guarantee was nothing but breach of trust reposed in it. The bank assisted the applicant to file the case agreeing as ifthey were in collusion with the beneficiary. The collusion and criminal conspiracy on the part of the bank and its officials in hierarchy with the Mis. X Design Venfures Pvt. Ltd.,'led to a strong suspicion that there was some hankypanky deal with the bank and committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC. The complainant lodged a complaint before the concemed police on 25.11.2010 and earlier also, but the police had not taken interest to register the complaint.

¶49

.1 Dt.GRRJ Crt P. No 702 of20l I

¶50

The sai<l complaint rvas refemed to the Panjagutta Police for investigation unde r l;ection lji6(3 ) Cr.P.C. and the samc was registered as Clime No.60 ol'2011. To quash the same, the present petition is filed by Al to Al8.

¶51

Notices sent to respondent Nos.2 and 3 were retumed unserved with an enclorsement as "addressee left". As such, the service was lreld sufficie nt on 1,2.07.2022. Heard learned counsel for the petltroners.

¶52

The learned counsel for the petitioners subrnitted that the complaint filed by thc complainant against the petitioners was nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. The petitioners wcre no way connected with the transactions [)etween the complainant and X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd., and the Canara Ilank. The complainant having tost before competent civil courl and other authorities, launcl.red criminal prosecution with false and baseless allegations. As there was a dispute in respect of the contract between the complainant and X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd., the X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd., llled a suit vide O.S. No.78 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge , City Civil Court, Hyderabad against Canara Bank and also thc complainirnt praying to declare the action of the Canara Bank

¶53

Dr GRR-J Cll P ,U) /01ol )0ll

¶54

¶55

)

¶56

in paying Rs.45,43,250/- to defendants 2 and 3 herein i.e. complainant on the basis of invocation of bank guarantee dated 08.09.2003 as illegal and sought for permanent injunction against the Canara Bank restr-aining them from paying the balance amount of Rs.54,56,750/- to the defendants therein i.e. complainant and to direct the defendants I to 3 i.e. canara bank and the complainant^jointly and severally to refund Rs.45,43,250i- together with interest from the date of suit till payment of realization and costs. The said suit was decreed on 17 .07 .2006 with interest @7 5% from 08.01.2004 till the date of realization and also with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Canara bank preferred CCCA No.237 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 09.11.2006 granted stay of all lurther proceedings in O.S. No.78 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on condition of depositing half of the decreetal amount along with suit costs within a period of four weeks and on such deposit, the plaintiff i.e. X Design Ventures Private Limited were permitted to withdraw the said amount. Inpursuance of the said orders of this Court, the Canara Bank deposited an amount of Rs.30,34,095/-towards halfofthe decreetal amount and costs on 08.12.2006.

¶57

The complainant also filed an appeal in CCCA No.2l2 of 2006 against thejudgment and decree in O.S No.78 of2004 and sought^for

¶58

¶59

Dr.GRa,J (tt.P No 702 of )0t1

¶60

stay ol all further proceedings.^-['his Court by order dated 09. 11.2006 directed to deposit half of the decreetal amount with suit costs within four wecks but the conrplainant did not comply with the order of the court and deliberately suppressed the said fact in the complaint. The conduct ofthe complainant was dubious as the cornplainant stated that the Ombudsman had recognized its cntitlernent and clirected the Canara bank to honour its obligation. The said statement was false. The complaint filed by the cornplainant beforc Banking Ombudsmen bearing No.3 l0 of 2003-04 was closed lbr the reason that the complainant therein had not fbllowed the due diligence by not filing written subrnissions. Therefore, the statement of the complainant that the Ornbudsrnen recognized its entitlement was false and baseless. It was nothing but perjury for which the complainant was liable to be punished. The complainant failed to file the copy of the order of the Banking Ombudsnren. The complainant filed WP No.22344 of 2006 against the Canara Bank and X Designs Ventures Pvt. Ltd., to declare the action of the Canara Ilank in not rnaking payment of the remaining amount under bank guarante(r as illegal and to direct the bank to pay the balance amount. The said writ petition was dismissed on 22.07.2008 for default and thc WPM P ll lecl for restoration of the said writ petition was also dismissed. The Director of the cornplainant company was arrested for

¶61

/ /,

¶62

¶63

1 DIGRR,J (-rl.P. No 7(t-1 o/ )01I

¶64

cheating an IT company to an extent of Rs.1.05 crores and the sanre is pending against him.

¶65

I . He further submitted that the petitioners 2, 6,7 and 8 were no way connected with the transactions. They were Senior Executives and top officials who had been impleaded without there being any reason. The petitioner No.9 was a Director representing the Government of India fi'om Ministry of Finance. The petitioner No.l0 was Director of Reserve Bank ol India. The petitioner No.11 was Joint Secretary of Union of Canara Bank Workmen Ernployee Director, Petitioner Nos. I 2 to l4 were Part time Directors and Petitioners No.15 & 16 were Directors and Share holders and petitioner No. 18 was Officer Employee Director who had no connection with the alleged offence attributed by the complainant and all' of them were dragged with a malafide intention to cause harm to their reputation and image in the public on its face. The complainant approached the criminal court with unclean hands and filed a false and frivolous complaint.

¶66

It was further submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners were civil in nature. The averments in the complaint would not make out the ingredients of the alleged olfences under Sections 120-B,

¶67

Dr'GRR.J ( tl.P. No.702 oI2till

¶68

¶69

406,420 IPC. Ihc conduct of the complainant in filing complaints was in the naturc of black-mailing.^-fhe complainant had marked the copy of the FIR to atl the'l-V n!-ws channels in India and also to all the news^papers as well as Secretalies^,..,f all the States in India. The said action on the part of the cornplainant u,as nothing but defarning the officials of the bank. As the matters prefened by the bank as well as by the complainant were subjudice and pending before the High Court, the bank could not pay the atleged amounts bclbre disposal of the appeals. Launching of criminal prosecution in lespect of a civil dislrute which was subjudice was nothing but a gross abuse o1'process of the court and prayecl to call for the records in FIR No.60 of 20 11 dated 21.01.2011 on the file of the Panjagutta Police Station and to quash the same with exemplary costs.

¶70

Perused the record. As seen from the record, a contract was entered bctween the complainant as well as M/s.X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd., and towards pellormance ol-the work, M/s.X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd. had issued an unconditional bank guarantee for USD $2,17,000 equivalent to INR 1.00 crore with a validity period of one year from 08.09.2003 to 07.09.2()04. Alleging that the performance of IWs.X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd.,, was unsatisfactory, the complainant invoked the bank guarantee within its validity period and the Canara bank who issued the

¶71

Dt ARRJ 9 Crl P- No.7tt: ol l0ll

¶72

/,,

¶73

bank guarantee had paid 45% of the atnount and retained the rernaining 55%.^{The CivilRevision Petitionfiled by tlre cornplainanttbr not paying} the balance 55% was dismissed for nonlrrosecution. M/s.X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd., filed a civil suit vide OS. No.78 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was decreed in their favour directing the Canara bank and the complainant to refund^jointly and severally Rs.45,43,2501- i.e.45oh of the bank guarantee amount invoked by the complainant together with intercsl at 7.5o/o p.a. from 08.01.2004 till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, both the Canara bank as well as the complainant preferred appeals before this Court. In the appeal preferred by the Canara bank vide CCCA No.237 of 2006, while granting stay, this Court ordered for depositing halfofthe decreetal amount. The Canara bank deposited an amount of Rs.30,34,095/- on 08.12.2006. In the appeal prefened by the complainant vide CCCA No.12 of 2006, the same was also stayed by this court directing to deposit half of the decreetal amount but, the complainant failed to comply the said order.

¶74

The complainant having approached the civil court failed to prosecute the matter. M/s. X Design Ventures Pvt. Ltd., who filed civil suit obtained a decree in their favour.^{When the} appeals^{were prefemed by}

¶75

Dr-GRR.J Crt P. No.702 of )0t I

¶76

¶77

both parties and the same werc pcnding, hling a private complaint against the petitioners hcrein, who ucre about 18 in nunrber,^who were no way connected with the clay to day al'lar rs of the bank citing them as accused prima.facie shows Ihe malatlde intention of the respondents No.2 and 3 in initiating criminal nroceedings. Admittedly, the bank could not pay the alleged amounts to the complainant as the matter was sub-judice before this Court vide C('CA Nos.237 ol 2006 and 212 of 2006 and pending befbre it. The complainant had suppressed the fact ofthe pending appeals in its private cornplaint, which would amount to suppression of material facts.

¶78

I 1. Likcr,' ise, the complainant had made a false statement about the banking Omburisrnen recognizing its entitlement, when the said complaint filed by thern before the banking Ombudsmen was closed for not filing their written submissions.

¶79

The oonrplainant had not followed the procedure as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court about the requirement of filing an affidavit in support ofan application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that there has to be a prior application under Section 154(l) and 154(3) while filing a petition undcr Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Hon,ble Apex

¶80

¶81

('t1 P. No.ltD ot )0tl

¶82

Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh

¶83

and othersr, helcl that

¶84

"Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that and the application under Section 156(3)bc supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is lound to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section I 56(3)."

¶85

The leamed counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the

¶86

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Electricity

¶87

Distribution Company Limited and another v. Datar Srvitchgear

¶88

Limited and another2, wherein it was held that:

¶89

"Presumption cannot^{be drawnthat a Chainnan} of a cornpany^is responsible lbr all acts cornmitted by or on behalf of the company - Wherever by a legal fiction principle of vicarious liability is attracted it has to be specifically provided in the statute concemed. Neither Section 192 nor Section 199 IPC incorporate principle of vicarious liability. Therefore, it is incumbent on complainant to specifically aver role of each of accused in complaint. Absence of any sucl.r specific averment in complaint demonstrating role of Chainnan in commission of offence, no prima facie case made out against appellant in respect ofoffences under Sections 192 and 199 IPC"

¶90

The Hon'ble Apex Court while extracting the^judgment l11 S.M.S.

¶91

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla t(2005) 8 SCC 891, held that:

¶92

"In this regard, it would be useful to advert to the observations made by a three^judge bench of this Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra):-

¶93

'20t5^{(6) scc 287}

¶94

' lzotoyto^sccaz9

¶95

DT.CRRJ Ot P. No 702 of20l I

¶96

¶97

"There is no universal rlle that a director ofa cornpany is in chargc of its everyday aftairs. We have discussed about thc posrtion of a dircctor in a company in ordcr to illush'atc the point that thcre is no magic as such in a particular word, be it dircctor, manager or secretary. lt all depends upon the respectivc roles assigned to the olficers in a company. A cor.npany may have lnanagers or secretarics for different depaftments, which n-reans, it may have rnore than one manager or secretary."

¶98

It is tritc law that whcrever by a legal fiction the principle of vicarious liability is attractcd and a person who is otherwise not personally involved in the cornmission of an offence is made liable for the same. it has b be specifically provided in the statute concemed. In our opinion, neither Section 192 IPC nor Section 199 IPC, incoqrorate the principle olvicarious liability, and therefore, it was incumbcnt on the oornplainant to specifically aver the role of each of the accused in the complaint. It would be profitable to extract the following obscrvations made in S.K. Alagh (supra) :-

¶99

"As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in the name of the Companl', even if the appellant was its Managing Director, hc cannot be said to have committed an offence under Scction 406 of thc Penal Code. lf and when a statutc contemplates crcation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically theretbr. In absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a Director of a Company or an emplol,es cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offence oommitted by thc Company itself.''

¶100

In the present case no specific avernents were made by the

¶101

complainant in his complaint with regard to the role of each of the

¶102

petitioners-accused. As such, the col.r.rplainant was not maintainable on the

¶103

said ground also.

¶104

DI GRRJ Ctl.P- No 7D ol )0ll

¶105

¶106

¶107

Learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the

¶108

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Tiwari and others v.

¶109

Nandas Kishore Roy3, wherein it was held that:

¶110

"Where proceeding is of civil nature which cannot be adjudicated by criminal court, High Court would be^justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction and quashing the sarne."

¶111

The Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that:

¶112

"29. This Court, in a series ofdecisions, has emphasized the inherent power of the High Court to pass appropriate orders to prevent the abuse of process of court or to secure the ends of^justice. Though, inherent^jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution when adequate materials are available which clearly shows that the proceeding is either of civil nature, cannot be adjudicated by the criminal court or if it is an abuse of process of court, the High Court is well within its power to exercise its inherent^j urisdiction and quash the same.

¶113

Contours of the power under Section 482 CrPC have been explained in a series of decisions by this Court. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (197 6) 3 SCC 736, it was held that the Magistrate while issuing process against the accused should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused. It was held that the order of Magistrate issuing process against the accused could be quashed under the following circumstances:

¶114

"(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

¶115

(2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶116

'(zoto)^{g scc llz}

¶117

DiARtaJ art.t'. No-/D o120t 1

¶118

¶119

(3) Whcre the discretion r:xcrcised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been bascd eithcr on no evidence or on materials rvhich are wholly ir-relevant or inadmissible; and

¶120

(4) Whcre the complaint suffers from fundarnental legal defccts, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally compctent authority and the like."

¶121

In State t-f Haryana vs. Bhajan LaI, 1992 Supp. (l) SCC 335, a question calrle up for consideration as to whether quashing olthe FIR filed against the respondent Bhajan Lal ibr the offences under Sections l6l and 165 IPC and Section 5(2) ofthe Prevention of Comrption Act was propcr and legal. Reversing the order passed by the High Court. this Court explained the circumstances under which such power could be exercised. Apart from reiterating the earlier norms laid dou,n by this Court, it was furthcr explained that such power could be exerciscd wherc allegation made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudcnt person can evor reach ajust conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. No doubt, at the stage of quashing an FIR or complaint the High Court is not^justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegation made therein.

¶122

In G. Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 SCC 636, this Court has held:-

¶123

"8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised r.l'ith great care. 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 ofother remedies available irr law. Bcfore issuing process a criminal courl has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a scrious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process ofany court or otherwise to securc the ends of justice."

¶124

In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (200fi) 6 SCC 736. the following paragraphs are relevant:- ',13. While on this issue, it is necessary to takc notice of a growing tendency in business circles kr convelt purely civil disputes into criminal cases.

I t

D..CRRJ (it-P. No-702 ol )OII

¶129

¶130

This is obviously on account ol a prevalent imprcssion that civil law rernedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputcs also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an irnpression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. "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 ofother 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. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse ofthe process ofany court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice."

¶131

The facts of this case also would disclose that the complainant

¶132

had converted a civil dispute into a criminal case. While they were fully aware that the civil appeal filed by them was pending before this court, criminal proceedings are unwarranted. They filed the private complaint and got it referred to the police with an ulterior motive. Marking the copy of FIR to all the TV News channels, News papers and to the Secretaries of all the States 1n India also would show their malicious intention of defaming the officials of the bank. Henee, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings in Crime No.60 of 2011 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, dated 21.01.2011 registered against the petitioners.

¶133

¶134

DT.GRR.J C4.P No 702 of2al l

¶135