HC cannot delve into disputed question of facts in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C

Case details: Summy Bhasin v. State of Nct of Delhi - [2021] 128 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
  • Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Adv. for the Petitioner. 
  • Mukesh Kumar, App and Sonal Anand, Adv. for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot go into truth or otherwise of allegations made in the complaint or delve into the disputed question of facts.

In a given case, the Directors of company ‘International Trenching’ approached complainant to invest in their company with a promise to return principal amount with interest within five years and relying on such assurances complainant invested in said company.

However, directors of the company ‘International Trenching’ issued cheques to the complainant in order to discharge their liability, said cheques were dishonoured. Thus, the complainant instituted a complaint under section 138 against said directors and petitioner (who was responsible for finance and banking in company ‘International Trenching’).

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an instant petition seeking direction to quash proceedings against her by invoking provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on grounds that neither she was a director nor had she signed cheques in questions nor she even participated in any meetings or negotiations with complainant with regard to transactions in question nor she ever executed any document with regard thereto and hence, she had no role in the alleged offence.

High Court Held

Issues involving facts raised by the petitioner by way of defence could be canvassed only by way of evidence before Trial Court and the same would have to be adjudicated on the merit of the case and not by invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, instant petition was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Sudeep Jain v. ECE Industries 201 [2013] Delhi Law Times 461 (para 6)
  • National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal[2010] 98 SCL 407 (SC) (para 6)
  • Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI[2015] 61 taxmann.com 220/132 SCL 56 (SC) (para 6)
  • Milind Shripad Chandurkar v.Kalim M. Khan [2011] 12 taxmann.com 284/108 SCL 184 (Mag.) (SC) (para 6)
  • A.C. Narayanan v.  State of Maharashtra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 167/126 SCL 444 (SC) (para 8)
  • Rajesh Agarwal v. State 2010 SCC Online Del 2501 (para 8)
  • Nandhini v. Vinayaga Textiles 2015 SCC Online Mad. 8304 (para 8)
  • Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State of Gujrat[2004] 54 SCL 595 SC (para 8)
  • N. Rangachari v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2007] 77 SCL 21 (SC) (para 8)
  • A.R. Radha Krishna v. Dasari Deepthi [2019] 15 SCC 550 (para 8)
  • Mandvi Co. Op. Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore [2010] 98 SCL 139 (SC) (para 20)
  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Singh Jodon [Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020, dated 31-1-2020] (para 21).