JAT, J. - (1.) THIS is a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 9. 1. 2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 22, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which he took cognizance under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I. P. C. in the Criminal Case No. 26/2007 State vs. Mahesh Choudhary relating to F. I. R. No. 356/2004 at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner is involved in the business of manufacturing and export of hand knotted woolen carpets in the name of M/s. Saraswati Exports and similarly the complainant party is also involved in the business of manufacture and export of hand knotted woolen carpets in the name of S. B. Kapoor Exports. the complainant and the accused- petitioner agreed to promote the business of carpets and in furtherance of the aforesaid promotion of business number of transactions as well as the agreements were entered into between both the firms. One of the said agreement is dated 1. 4. 2001 but during the course of aforesaid business dealing various disputes arose between both the firms and the complaints as a result of which both the parties lodged various cases against each other which are pending different forums. One dated 15. 5. 2004 an F. I. R. was registered by the accused-petitioner against the complainant in the present criminal case, in connection with forgery committed with respect to some cheques at Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur. THE Complainant in present case submitted a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 22, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420, 406 I. P. C. against the present petitioner. THE said complaint being sent to police station Brahmpuri, Jaipur for investigation and an F. I. R. No. 356/2004 was registered and investigation started and then investigation transferred to C. I. D. (C. B.) Rajasthan and thereafter the matter was also investigated by the Additional Superintendent of Police (North), Jaipur city, Jaipur. Charge- sheet was submitted against the petitioner and the cognizance was taken vide order dated 9. 1. 2007 by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 22, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of I. P. C. and, therefore, this criminal misc. petition for quashing and setting aside the order of taking cognizance dated 9. 1. 2007 and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 26/2007 of Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur in respect of F. I. R. No. 356/2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the agreement dated 1. 4. 2001 is the basis between the parties for the business dealing and if any dispute arise between the parties then as per paras 7, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 17 of the agreement, the dispute may be settled as per provisions of aforesaid agreement and the complainant filed this F. I. R. only in counter blast, the F. I. R. lodged by petitioner at Police Station Vidhayakpuri. Learned counsel also stated that as per terms of the agreement commission to the tune of Rs. 3,21,06,910/- was paid to the complainant by the firm of accused-petitioner and the dispute is only with regard to small commission of Rs. 14,44,650/-, but no offence whatsoever is made out against the accused-petitioner and it is purely a civil matter. Thus, the present case is the ill motivated case and as per the contents of charge-sheet, the accused-petitioner not only appeared but has also submitted required documents and information to he investigating agency. Hon'ble Apex Court has in its catena of judgments, held that where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or where proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge the same will not be allowed to continue and in this regard the jurisdiction of High Court for quashing criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is justified and wide enough. Learned counsel for the petitioner, for quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. relied on the judgments as under: 1. State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. in 1992 Criminal Law Journal. 527 (Supreme Court), 2. G. Sagar Suri & Anr. vs. State of U. P. & Ors. in 2000 (2) Supreme Court Cases 636, 3. Sardar Trilok Singh & Ors. vs. Satya Deo Tripathi in 1979 (4) Supreme Court Cases 396, 4. Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivan & Anr. in 2001 (3) Supreme Court Cases 513, 5. U. Dhar & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. in 2003 (2) Supreme Court Cases 219 6. Ajay Mitra vs. State of M. P. & Ors. in 2003 (3) S. C. C. 11, 7. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar in 2000 (4) Supreme Court Cases 1689 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant supported the order of cognizance passed by trial Court. Learned counsel for respondents states that the trial Court found prima facie material against the petitioner and took cognizance for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 I. P. C. against accused-petitioner on the basis of material on record as investigated by the investigating agency. The order of cognizance is the final order and against such final order, he revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is provided for and the revision petition filed by petitioner has been dismissed by A. D. J. No. 7, Jaipur City, so the present petition under Section 482 is not maintainable. The petitioner has filed the present petition on misleading and unfounded grounds. Even special leave to appeal (Criminal) No. 657/2007 was presented before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but that petition dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner's main contention is that material is of civil nature as the reliance placed on the agreement and tried to make out a case that present matter is relating to business transaction and of civil nature, but in the present matter the complainant has specifically levelled allegations against the petitioner that he has committed cheating and forged documents thereby deprived the complainant of his due commission. Hence, it cannot be said that matter is of a civil nature and because of the fact that the petitioner has committed cheating and forgery of documents, hence, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and present petition for quashing the order of cognizance is devoid of merit and deserved to be dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents made reliance on the following judgments: (1) M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3014, (2) Meenu Kumari & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. in 2006 (4) Supreme Court Cases 359 (3) State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Saroj Kumar Sahu in 2005 (13) Supreme Court 540 = (2006 (1) RLW 757 (SC), (4) Hamida vs. Rashida & Rasheed & Ors. in 2007 R. C. C. (SC) 763 (5) Indian Oil Corporation vs. N. E. P. C. Ltd. & Ors. in 2006 (6) Supreme Court Cases 736 = 2006 (4) RLW 3380 (SC) Section 482 Cr. P. C.--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Under this Section jurisdiction is wide in its scope. This power has to be exercised with great restraint, wider should be the power, greater should be the restraint. It is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases. As a rule of practice, the power being an extraordinary one, it will be exercised in exceptional cases and it will be justified for interference only when the complaint did not disclose a prima facie offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive. ;