Karnataka High Court
Future Metals Pvt Ltd vs Stcl Ltd on 16 April, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
Bangalore filed by the first respondent herein and all
proceedings pursuant thereto-vide Annexure--A and Crl.P.No. 1554/2012 is filed under section 482»C-r;P..C.., praying to quash the complaint in C.C.No.978§i7'/'20--Q_9' one the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan" Magistrate; 8 r_ Bangalore filed by the first respondent .~he,r_"ein "-and all --« .8 "
proceedings pursuant thereto-vide Anii-exrure-AVand'rB.l ll Crl.P.No. 1555/2012 is filed underf secti'on"4-.82 Cr_8';'P,C;.. praying to quash the complaint in'C.C.No.1019.4'/200:9 the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan'B/lagistrate,"V Bangalore filed by the first "r_esponde'n.t 'hcreirzr and all proceedings pursuant thereto-vide" ..AnneXure'--'A. ,and9B.
Crl.P.No. 1556 /20-1 2 is 'filed undjerr section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the cornplaint in_-CL'C;No;_.79852/2009 on the file of the XXIV Additional C'hi'ef Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore fi]ed..b_'y the first =.,re's.p0.Vndef'nt herein and all proceedings"pursiiaiit.thei eto--Vide Annexure-A and B. Crl.P.-No:.].5V57/2O--12=is. filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying "to. _qt§;ash:f:.the"'eomplaii'it"--in C.C.No. 17397 / 2009 on the file of Additional. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore r filed' 'tlj1e=._ first respondent herein and all proceedings ypursuant th--e__reto--vide Annexure--A and B. 1558/ is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., pra§:ingA't.o quas-h__t_l__1_e. complaint in C.C.No.16578/2009 on 8 ll the fi1:e"'of"i'the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, _ » vBangalore',filed by the first respondent herein and all ' proceedings pursuant thereto-vide Annexure«A and B. 1559/2012 is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying tolquash the complaint in C.C.No.97848/2009 on the fileof the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 'Bangalore filed by the first respondent herein and all '_ .p_ro'c_«eedings pursuant thereto-vide Annexure-A and B. ()\7. *\0\ ~n"{C r 12 Cr1.P.No.5744/2010 is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 14905/2009 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, insofar as petitioners are concerned. 2.
Crl.P.No.5745/ 2010 is filed under section._482=Cr".Pl.C,',' praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No--.~1----7.543/2.009 2 A the file of the XV Additional Chief---lVIetropQlita.n :M'agistrfate,» Bangalore, insofar as petitioners are concerned; ' Cr1.P.No.5746/2O1O is filed unlder"section-3482 Cr,P.C.. praying to quash the proceedingsgin C;'C,.No_.1OV19'4'/20029 on* the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, insofar as petitioners.are_ c'oncerne'd__ Crl.P.No.5747/20210 is filed.Vundei'.,section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings:in_--~C.'C.,:No','..1 7397 / 2009 on the file of the XV Additional" Chief _ Me'trop.olitan Magistrate, Bangalore, insofar as p=etition'ers«.are:_"eon_c?érned.
Crl.PLNo,_574'8'/42O'1.Q..jévfiled under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quashfthe pi'-oc"e.edings C.C.No.10195/ 2009 on the file"of'thej;XV':Addi'tional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. _ins'ofar_ as petitioners are concerned.
Crl,.l34,No.57_4',~lB,/r'2(Q)'1--Q':is"'filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying toquash the'.pro,ceedings in C.C.No.14701 / 2009 on the file of the-XV' Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, V. p Baiigalorc. insofaraswpetitioners are concerned.
Crl,P,lA:\lo.575O/2010 is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., pIj.ayVi11gV'to"quas_h the proceedings in C.C.No.16578/ 2009 on 'Cl'A1€:'~_fllCvOfV"'Y.h€::XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, B'i',-nsofar as petitioners are concerned.
"Crl.P.No.5751/2010 is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying" to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.21886 / 2009 on the "file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, " Bangalore, insofar as petitioners are concerned. , y I = X v':/Q , a/\?.26 79
STCL Ltd..
006084 'z636J§Mi00.5* '._--;A '2 <. ', 1530;g012.80
STCL Ltd., 006085' ,_ %_" 5";2888/2011_F ',ia;562¢Mx1005'~ "" ' 1' & 1530/2012 81 STCL Ltd..
000086f 56L4eSxxxx00 1'-.1540/2012 & 5751/2010 82 STCLI¢d;_ oososrg 1"fi;g00xfifl100 1540/2012 & 5751/2010 83 84 _sIcL1fid}, sTcLixg§fT0060§§_ _0060$0 :"fii780}xMx00 1,200.00 1544/2012 & 3216/2011 85 "STCL Ltd; ,' ' j_j ~ 125,664,000.00 1524/2012 & 2873/2011 863 Lfd';',«.
0.0609 1 125,664,000.00 1547/2012 & 5743/2010 EW§§LfL10"
006092 125,664,000.00 1547/2012 & 5743/2010 STCL Ltd., 006093 125,664,000.00 1547/2012 & 1554/2012 & 5743/2010 89 STCL Ltd., 006094 125,664,000.00 1554/2012 & 2876/2011 & 2882/2011 90 STCL Ltd., 006095 110,420,100.00 1544/2012 ~C 0 __.
8 .
27 &:
3216/2011 1544/2012 ~ -&3 ;
91 STCLI1d" 006096 107,1n;4501x) _ L_ _ 53216/2011< 6-1548;gCj§--H 92 STCLIldq 006097 126i¥Hl000IW)0gvW[&_ ", --. 7 I *5'/'_44/_20 10. 0 ' t * 1548.!2o11121' 93 STCLIid" 006098 hMi840fiKX1005Z_ '8f9uw6 w *2 .x«5744/2010 a '_"g '*, V1': 1546/2012'.
94 STCLI¢dq 006099 1261yux0001x1: 3: & *~ w ~._ 5744/2010 '95 STCLI¢dq 006005 '}*fL8595¥x;50 2676/2011 1554/2012 &:
&:
2882/2011 61, .59ig0 _4jq1u,"" 1554/2012 96 STCL1xdg_ 006006~7 74g%x1662:x) 2676/2011 . . ' . .. 'V 2:1: & 2662/2011 <1'_ '_ ~ja.»_.a_J, 1650/2012 97 S"1.'.CL7Ltd.*,. '-9006007' 74,659,662.50 & v. - - 7. K3' 5749/2010 006009 74,659,662.50 ;~ _ »a'" ' 1650/2012 96-', VS'1'CLLtdI','>.._.._Q06OO8 74,659,662.50 & " ** "~. 5749/2010 1650/2012 & 5749/2010 100 "s71CL Ltd., 006010 74,659,662.50 & 1552/2012 3213/2011 1"-101"0 STCLLtd., 006011 74,659,662.50 & 1552/2012 3213/2011 fi\J_cé2x»¢"vk'é:. 28 102
STCL Ltd., 0060 12 74,859,882.50 1541/2012 3215/2011 103 STCL Ltd..
006013 74,859,882.5O ; u j__ "3215¢2011*.
1541/2012 104 STCL Ltd., 0060 14 10L=1549/2012100;
69,5.14,875.00"~--'1,» " 1 I '~* '*'3220/2011;
& .
105 STCL Ltd..
006015» 1 _ 6Z97OJO01XI.A°' i'"- T_ w. -- . '_'3215/2011- & .
106 STCL Ltd., 000010 11.626s,4215,325.1o0_ 1542/2012 '3214/2011 107 STCL Ltd., 000017 1 764,e.8_0,.'5;50;_0o 1542/2012 & 3214/2011 108 sTcLi1d§*, .
_,4'6:3;'3é5';775.00 1552/2012 & 3213/2011 109 »sTCL1¢d§€p 1000019 ""0fi791xxx100 1542/2012 & 3214/2011 110 STCLl1dg 5006020"
69,514,875.00 1559/2012 & 2875/2011 1111 L'1d".'; .
._..Q06021 67,970,100.00 1523/2012 8:
2877/2011 ".1121 "s1:n11iag 006022 66,425,325.00 1559/2012 & 2875/2011 '» 113 ".$itH,11d"
006023 64,880,550.00 1559/2012 & 2875/2011 STCL Ltd., 006024 64,677,375.00 1549/2012 & 3220/2011 I W, , 40
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very spari,n_g'ly_"'--«. and with circumspection and that too ,_ rarest of rare cases; that the court Will."1:10t_b'€.."' H justified in embarking upon an enquir_y__as~--.to' reliability or genuineness o_r.....o_t_herwise""ofv»the_' allegations made in the F.I.:R. or thet_con1p_laint and that the extraordinary {or iniierent 'powers.\,..g do not confer an arbitrary ju.risdictionV."_;oAn"the'; court to act according to its whim or caprice..'*'... In the case on hand, we areV_co,ncerne«d_VWithf?the order of issuance of processvunider Sec;_tion"204lC.r.P.C., against the petitioners for an offence.punishable"gunder Section 138 of the Negotiable is my w;V'ellV...se§ttled that the trial court while passing Section 204 Cr.P.C., need not pass a detailed order.ho\A}€Ver, the order should indicate that theétrial court"p_ri.ma-facie satisfied that averments of .A complaint -{Vvould constitute an offence alleged in the the matter comes up before this court under "Section 482 Cr.P.C., this court has to examine the order of trial court and the contentions raised by the parties 4&1, 1~£w< 41 in the light of settled principles of.-law-.rega:rdi.ng'i of if powers and scope of examination u:ri:def'A_AS'ection2182
14. In the earlier paragraphs, 1' have narrated the facts as averred in the complaints. l;l"h,e°petitionersehavegseriously contended that the cheques wé£e"-fig: iss_ued forfdischarge of legally enforceable debt The first c.o_ntentio~n~.i.s"thatA there. no existing debt or liability oni._the;iclaVte.Vvvhenllthe_'cheque's'vvere issued. The ' secon-ci*I'_V__ con--t_enti_o'n that the financial transactions'Vtreieijregd to "tl'.1:ewg_c(3mplaint and opening of Letters of, credit'by"responden.t to enable the petitioners to carry on xrnerchandisingl"trade in foreign countries involved violation of certainvlprovisions of FEMA. The contract entered into the parties is opposed to the provisions of llVU'ffi.the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, cl1»_eo1uesvve:rclnot issued to discharge legally enforceable debt or lia'oili'ty. W1 \_[;x L qg ,«. 45
28. What would be the effect of the expressions "may presume", 'shall presume' andgp 'conclusive proof has been considered by Court in Union of India V. Prarnod Gupta following terms: (SCC pp. 30-31, para ' "It is true that the le-gi'sla_turel different phraseologies 'shall-._be1"'presume.d;"
'may be presumed' in VSectionl'42=of thef-l.Punj:abl'; Land Revenue Act and-,:.furthermore.T provided for the mode an.du:rnanner "rebuttal of such presumptio11.._.a"s_ rega;fds"tl'1e."1*ight to mines and minerals said to be vested d_Government vis--a-vis_ abs§ence.._inV' relation to the lands_ _Vretainied the landowners but the that the words 'Z-'STll1l<'i1Vl" -- iwlouldl fbe' conclusive. The Il3_€a'i'1l1'1gV ,e'Xp_:ressions 'may presume' and 'shall lpresumefl' havembdeen explained in Section 4 X .r)f thel4'Evide.n..-':e }act,"..1872, from a perusal whereof it ,_vvould bleevident that whenever it is directed _ the~--,c_ourt shall presume a fact it shall regard it proved unless disproved. In terms of V provision, thus, the expression 'shall ..presume' cannot be held to synonymous with ., 'conclusive proof. fix)» C- T L0,LMD{L_ 46
29. In terms of Section 4 of the Evidence' whenever it is provided by the Act that shall presume a fact, it shall regard such«l._factV'eas'l proved unless and until it .dispr'ovevd;:
words "proved" and "disproved" it in Section 3 of the Evidence Act' interlpreltationliil clause) to mean:
"Proved"-- Ai_fa"ct to. proved When," after considering the matters 'b;;i;o:re court either believes it _ existl; "o'1ers3 its existence to probable :_n1aril"oug'ht, under the circuinst_a'ncles:l"of .p'articui.a1*V*case, to act upon V _ fact said to be disproved when; after consideri11g" the matters before it, the court"--«eit'her that it does not exist, or considersvits no'-:1--existence so probable that a prudeiit man ought, under the circumstances of case, to act upon the supposition " that*.li't*-- not exist."
' _ Applying the said definitions of "proved" 'or'fdisproved" to the principle behind Section 118 At 'T (a) of the Act, the court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before' it, i t .
,/ 4 '1 "L ' 47 either believes that the consideration does exist or considers the non--existence consideration so probable that a prudent '7' ought, under the circumstances of the"
case, to act upon the suppo:sitiori_p consideration does not exist. if presumption, what is>ll__neededA'~- probable defence. Even the evidence adduceq' Qn behalf.:'oflV'V'the complainant could be relied upo'n'l'- ll _
31. A._Divisionl3_ench in Bharat Barrle 8; twyikn l\/if_fg.=: U. Pyarelal albeit: the law in the f01.19Wi1'8""5i'PS tSCCtpp.50t~51 . para 12) ilponv.fljxconsideration of various judgmentsa.s':~not.§fi».plfigreinabove, the position of lawlwhich emerges is that once execution of the éilpromissory: note" is admitted, the presumption u1'1de1d.&SectioVn'""fl18 (a) would arise that it is by a consideration. Such a is rebuttable. The defendant can p_rovef*the non--existence of a consideration by 'raising a probable defence. If the defendant is if 'T proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, 8 W » ~c/Wei.50
referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in it part, of any debt or other liability. __ ~. _ p In the case on hand, petit_ioners have nogt.t1isp'u'ted: that} the respondent is the holder oflchzeques. V'l7here1.'lorel;t:the court V shall presume until the" ~contrarly"ilsl:proved thafthe cheques were drawn for considerations;-.ll'Und:§r.".5éC¥ion 139 of the Negotiable lnstrulm_ents'AcVt; 'presume that the respondent cheques discharge in whole or part ofVar13I'ci~gll:ac_;f,pVor
20. "in.Aaidecision"reportedin (2006) 6 SCC at Para 29, the Supreme VCvo'urt..phas4Vhe:ld: l ' tverri1sll"STe;:tion 4 of the Evidence Act ' 'whenevcr_ it' is provided by the Act that the court shall» presumeavfact, it shall regard such fact as V' * g provedilunless an until it is disproved."
_ l11.llVtheva:'forestated judgment, at Para 30, the Supreme Court V A "For rebutting such presumption, what is it needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for l the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon." WV' ~+:w 55 are being issued by the petitioners to the Standard Chartered Bank (Bankers of the petitioners) to stop paynient. Along with this letter, the petitioners had details of cheques extracted supra. The first petitioner had a:dd1'{_ess'ed 05.01.2009 after instructingiitgbankeifsl l The main reason pleaded:'_l:i"n.. letteilfolrg nonpayment as per back to back to unprecedented, un€XP€Ct€d and ;The petitioners have also to invoke Force Maejure hgaire also stated that they are " alternate methods to liquidate Jthe was to the knowledge of respondent?' petitioners have also contended that ' ;espondent..was ltowplerforrn certain obligations [under the backer».back._agreement, for non performance of the same, not entitled to present the cheques, which the . petitioners had given as security. ' Q3 59 material to indicate that contract entered into between the parties is void-ab-initio or it is forbidden by law.
28. In these petitions under Section 482 not permissible for this court to embark intoplpan. ya record a finding as to the nature of_cor1trac¥t' between the parties and alleged Violations Exchange Management Act'zT.(FEMA): these T contentions are available to.i"pletiti:oners, they""w'ill have to establish the same before the
29. lea;7rned_c*oui1sel f4orV.pletitio'ners have contended that eXcept.VV.Mr_.l';laVeen.Srira:m','"lotlier petitioners had seized to be the_A1"D";rectors--.'pof.'___company and they cannot be prosecuted' for under Section 138 of the Negcti,able llnstrurnents The petitioners have contended T if -. thatlthere are no allegations in the complaint that petitioners {Verena day--to--day affairs of the company. The re.S_4pond.entl;h'as disputed these facts.
30. In Para 15 of the complaint, it is stated thus:
"The complainant submits that accused No.2 to 8 being Directors of Accused No.1 Corfiany and /' r\2.c~ "~[r'A"'"C;\v 63 stages of the cases. If petitioners have personal inconvenience to attend the Court on every healing ciaterrthey are at liberty to invoke the provisions of _ Np/--