RISHIPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

                         [2014] 6 S.C.R. 1012


A                          RISHIPAL SINGH
                                    v.
                       STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1300 OF 2014)

                             JULY 2 , 2014
B
     [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.)

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482: Quashing of
   proceedings - Complainant-account holder in Bank where the
C. appellant was bank manager wrote a letter to the bank that
   some of his signed cheques were lost in travelling and same
   be not honoured when presented - Cheques were not cleared
   when presented - After few months when complainant received
   notice for dishonour of cheque from co-accused, the
o complainant filed a complaint against the appellant and
   others alleging that appellant failed to perform his duties and
   ought to have informed the complainant and police when the
   stolen cheques were presented and, therefore, had conspired
   with other accused to cheat complainant - Issuance of non-
E bailable warrants against the appellant - High Court refused
   to quash the criminal proceedings u/s.482 - On appeal, held:
   It is no doubt true that the courts have to be very careful while
   exercising the power u/s. 482 - At the same time, the court
   should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to
F otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into
   motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to
   be interdicted at the threshold - A clear reading of the
   complaint did not make out any offence against the appellant!
   Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged u/ss.34,
G 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 l.P.C. - Even
   assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the
   instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit, it all amounted
   to negligence in discharging official work .and at the maximum
   it can be said that it was dereliction of duty - Continuation of

H                              1012
         RISH IPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.           1013


the criminal proceedings against the appellant for          A
commission of the alleged offence was a pure abuse of
process of law and the complaint case deserves to be
quashed in the interest of justice - Criminal proceeding
pending against the appellant is quashed.
                                                            B
     The appellant was the Bank Manager of the
Ghaziabad District Co-operative Bank where the
respondent no. 2-complainant was holding an account.
On 17th May, 2004, the complainant wrote a letter to the
Bank informing that he lost signed cheque book while        C
travelling and, therefore, Bank should not honour the
cheques and should cancel them. Regarding the same,
the complainant also lodged a written report at Police
Station. The cheque was presented on 2nd August 2004
and was not cleared by the Bank in view of the written
instruction given by the complainant.                       D

     On 6th October, 2004, the complainant received a
notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act from co-accused alleging dishonour of cheque issued
by complainant towards the purchase of bricks.              E
Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint against the
appellant under Sections 34, 379. 411, 418, 420, 467, 458
and 477 IPC on the ground that a conspiracy was
hatched by appellant and other bank employees for
cheating "him and because of his involvement in the         F
conspiracy, the appellant has not performed his duties
with utmost responsibility and that when the stolen/lost
cheques were presented, he should have given
information to the police as well as to the complainant.
The magistrate issued non-bailable warrants. The High       G
court refused to quash the proceedings under section
482, Cr.P.C.

     In the instant appeal, the case of the appellant was
that he came to know about the criminal complaint only
when the non-bailable warrant was issued against him        H
    1014   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A because from August 2004 to January 2007 i.e. during
  the period the proceedings in the criminal complaint were
  going on, he was posted at another Branch of the Bank
  and, therefore, the summons were never served upon
  him and, therefore, the High Court erred in refusing to
B quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

       Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes
  it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under
C this section is to prevent abuse of process of Court and
  to secure ends of justice. There are no hard and fast rules
  that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary
  jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but
  not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no
D straight jacket formula nor defined parameters to enable
  a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will
  always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
  case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while
  exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 10]
E [1021--E-G]

       2. When a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to
  be quashed, the tests to be applied by the Court is as· to
  whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the
F complaint prima facie establish the case. The Courts
  have to see whether the continuation of the complaint
  amounts to abuse of process of law and whether
  continuation of the criminal proceeding results in
  miscarriage of justice or when the Court comes to a
  conclusion that quashing these proceedings would
G otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the Court can
  exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While
  exercising the po.wer under the provision, the Courts
  have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the
  complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or
H not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial court
          RISHIPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.              1015


 and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. [Para 12]      A
 [1023-C-E]

     Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v Biological E. Ltd
 and Ors. 2000 (3) sec 269: 2000 (1) SCR 1169 ; State of
 Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1991 (1)
                                                               B
 Suppl. SCR 387 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v.
 Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 592; Rajesh
 Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi 1999 (3) SCC 259:1993 (3) SCR
 930; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful
 Haque & Anr (2005) 1 SCC 122 - relied on.
                                                               c
       3. A reading of the letter dated 17th May, 2004
  showed that the complainant has instructed the
/appellant/Branch Manager not to pass cheques which
· were already signed. There is no dispute that after
  submitting the letter to the appellant, when the cheque      D
  was presented in the Bank on 2nd August, 2004, the same
  was not cleared by the appellant/Branch Manager in view
  of the letter of the complainant. There was no instruction
  to the Bank to inform the account holder or police when
  the cheque is presented and only a request was made          E
  to the Bank that the said four cheques should not be
  honoured. The complaint and letter addressed by the
  c.omplainant to the Branch Manager would show that the
  entire grievance of the co~plaint appears to be that
  basing on the written information which had been given       F
  to the appellant on 17th May, 2004, when the stolen
  cheque was presented, he should have given a complaint
  to the police. As the appellant has not chosen to give the
  complaint to the police, according to the complainant the
  other accused hatched a conspiracy with the appellant -      G
  Branch Manager and accordingly cheated him. [Paras 14,
  15] [1024-E-H; 1025-A]

     4. It is no doubt true that the Courts have to be very
 careful while exercising the power under Section 482
 Cr.P.C. At the same time, the court should not allow a        H
    1016     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle
  their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which
  is a pure abuse of· process of law and it has to be
  interdicted at the threshold. A clear reading of the
  complaint did not make out any offence against the
B appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences
  alleged under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467,
  458 and 477 l.P.C. Even assuming the Branch Manager
  has violated the instructions in the complaint in letter and
  spirit, it all amounted to negligence in discharging official
C work and at the maximum dereliction of duty.
  Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
  appellant for commission of the alleged offence under
  Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477
  l.P.C. was a pure abuse of process of law and the
  complaint case deserved to be quashed in the interest of
0
  justice. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set
  aside by quashing the criminal proceedings pending
  against the appellant under Sections 34, 379, 411, 418,
  420, 467, 458 and 477 l.P.C. [Para 16 17, & 18] (10~5-B-G]

E                       Case Law Reference
        2000 (1) SCR 1169             Relied on      Para 11
        1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 387       Relied on      Para 12
        1996 (5) sec 592              Relied on      Para 12
F
        1993 (3) SCR 930              Relied on      Para 12
           (2005) 1 sec 122           Relied on      Para 12
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
G No. 1300 of 2014

         From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2012 in
    CRLMA No. 37848/2012, of the High Court of Judicature at
    Allahabad.
H
          RISH IPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.                 1017


      V.A. Mohta, Amit Yadav, Omveer Singh, Nilakanta Mayak,        A
Shishir Deshpande, Kaushal Naryan Mishra, Sujata Kurdukar,
for the appellant.

     Rantnakar Dash, Garbesh Kabra, Parmod Kumar, Jabar
,Singh, M.P.S. Tomar Sandhya Goswami Abhisth Kumar,                 B
 Archana Singh for the respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    N.V. RAMANA. J. 1. Leave granted.

    2. This appeal arises out of order dated 6th November,
                                                                    c
2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad refusing the
prayer of the appellant for quashing the proceedings in
Complaint Case No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379,
411, 417, 418, 420, 457, 458 and 477 IPC pending on the file        D
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

      3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in a
nutshell, are that on 21st March, 2005, respondent No.2 herein
filed a private complaint (Annexure P/2) in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh under Section 156(3)           E
Cr.P.C. against the appellant herein and three other accused
who are not parties.before us, invoking Sections 34, 379, 411,
417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC. According to the said
complaint, the complainant was holding a Bank Account in the
Ghaziabad District Co-operative Bank, Maliwada, Ghaziabad           F
where the appellant was the Branch Manager. It was alleged
in the complaint that taking advantage of the innocence of the
complainant and his brother, the accused, mischievously
obtained their signatures on blank cheques and committed theft
of their hand bag in which the signed cheque book was kept.         G
When they came to know that their bag containing signed
cheques and other papers was missing, not knowing the
misdeed of the accuse~. a search has been undertaken for the
lost bag containing signed cheques and also lodged a written
 report on 17th May, 2004 at Sihani Gate Police Station to that     H
    1018    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A effect. The Bank was also informed in writing on 17th May, 2004
  itself that duly signed cheque book of Account No. 1132 has
  been lost, hence no payment on the lost cheques be made to
  any person and all those cheques may be cancelled (Annexure
  P/1). It was further stated by the complainant that when he
B received a notice dated 6th October, 2004 ·under Section 138
  of the Negotiable Instruments Act from Neelam Rani (co-
  accused, not party before us) stating that Cheque No.083697
  (one of the lose cheques) for Rs.5,00,067/- as if issued by him
  towards the purchase of Kachi bricks and coal from "t:Jeelam
c Brick Field", then he realized that there was some planned
  conspiracy and the cheque book was not actually lost but was
  stolen and being misused by the accused for drawing various
  amounts from his bank account. In the said complaint, the
  complainant - respondent No.2, has totally denied any such
  transaction with "Neelam Brick Field" and alleged that the
0
  accused cooked up that transaction, hatched a conspiracy with
  the bank employees for cheating him, and accordingly all the
  amounts of the complainant and his family have been "looted".

         4. The main allegation levelled against the appellant was
E that when a written information had already been given on 17th
   May, 2004 to the appellant who was the Branch Manager of
   the Bank not to honour the lost cheques and cancel them, he
   should have performed f'lis duties with utmost responsibility and
   when the stolen/lost cheque was presented, he should have
F given the information of its presentation to the police as well
   as to the complainant. On the contrary, the appellant neither
   handed over the person who presented the cheque, to the
   police, nor brought to the .notice of the complainant about its
   presentation. It is because.of the involvement of the appellant
G 'irr the conspiracy he has not discharged his duties as Branch
   Manager with responsibility and acted against the instructions
   in the letter dated 17th May, 2004 only to harass the
   complainant and his family financially and mentally. Thus the
   appellant played a role _in the conspiracy, and therefore, the
H
          RISHIPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.                  1019
                 [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
complainant lodged the complaint under the aforesaid sections       A
of IPC against the appellant as well as other accused.

    5. After registering the Complaint Case, the learned
Magistrate recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. and issued summons against the accused under
Section 204 Cr.P.C. Two other co-accused challenged the             B
summoning order before the High Court in a Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 6334 of 2006 and the Allahabad
High Court has stayed further proceedings in the Complaint
Case. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application, and hence, non-bailable warrant has      C
been issued against the appellant on 3rd October, 2012.

    6. Then the appellant moved the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against him. It was the
case of the appellant that he came to know about the criminal       o
complaint only when the non-bailable warrant has been issued
against him because from August 2004 to January 2007, during
which period the proceedings in the criminal complaint were
going on, he was posted at Dhaulana Branch, therefore, the
summons were never served upon him. But, by the impugned            E
order dated 6th November, 2012 the High Court refused to
quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

     7. Before us, the main contention of the learned senior
counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has nothing to do
with the alleged offence and his name was unnecessarily             F
dragged into the criminal complaint. When Cheque No. 083697
was presented in the Bank on 2nd August, 2004, it was not
cleared by the Bank in view of the written instruction given by
the complainant and no loss was caused to the complainant at
the hands of the appellant. Afterwards, the appellant was           G
transferred from Maliwara Branch to Dhaulana Branch on 21st
August, 2004 and he was again transferred to Maliwara Branch
in January 2001 where he remained till August 2011. He further
contended that the complainant in his letter dated 17th May,
2004 (Annexure P/1) addressed to the appellant has nowhere          H
    1020    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A asked him to inform to the police or to give communication to
  him when the cheque is presented. The entire reading of the
  said letter does not disclose any case against the appellant and
  his name was included into the criminal complaint only to malign
  and defame him because the complainant has received some
8 notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
  from the other accused. Only to create a defence against those
  cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint has
  been filed by the complainant with mala fide intention. Hence,
  the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is misconceived and it
C does not attract any of the offences alleged against the
  appellant as it was filed only with vexatious and oblique motive.
  But the High Court, without going into the merits and facts of
  the case, merely relying on the provisions of Section 245
  Cr.P.C. directed the appellant to file application for his
  discharge before the trial Court. This approach of the High
D Court is erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this
  Court. The High Court ought to have allowed the application of
  the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the complaint does
  not attract the ingredients of Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418,
  467, 468, 471and477 IPC. He, therefore, prayed to set aside
E the impugned order passed by the High Court and quash the
  proceedings in the Complaint Case qua the appellant.

       8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent
  No.2/complainant while supporting the order passed by the
F High Court submitted that the appellant has not properly
  discharged his responsibilities as Branch Manager and acted
  in a casual manner due to which respondent No.2 had to suffer
  financial loss as well as put to lot of hardship. Particularly, he
  contended that in the light of the letter dated 17th May, 2004
G when .a lost/stolen cheque was presented for clearance, it is
  expected from a responsible officer of the Bank that instead
  of passing the cheque for payment, he should inform the
  account holder about its presentation and also to bring to the
  notice of police such mala fide presentation of cheque by the
H presenter, but the appellant has totally failed in performing his
          RISHIPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.                    1021
                 [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
duties. So, therefore is no reason for this Court to interfere with   A
the order of the High Court.

      9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the entire material available on record, including
the complaint, now the issue for co~sideration before us is           B
whether in the light of the letter dated 17th May, 2004 (Annexure
P/1 ), the appellant has made out any case to quash the
proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2397/2002 under Sections
34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 467, 468, 471and477 IPC on the file
of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
                                                                      c
     10. Before we deal with the respective contentions
advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have
thorough look at Section 482 Cr.P.C., which reads:

     "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the     o
     inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
     may be necessary to give effect to any orders of this Code
     or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise
     to secure the ends of justice".

      A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it crystal          E
clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is
to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of
justice. There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down
for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising
the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt       F
true that there can be no straight jacket formula nor defined
parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent
powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.                     G

     11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd.
v Biological E. Ltd and Others 2000 (3) SCC 269, has
discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising
power under Section 482 Cr.~.C. and how cautious and careful
                                                                      H
    1022    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   the approach of the Courts should be. We deem it apt to extract
    the relevant portion from that judgement, which reads:

        "Exercise of jurisdiction under inherent power as
        envisaged in Section. 482 of the Code to have the
        complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an exception
B
        rather than rule and the case for quashing at the initial
        stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not
        to scuttle the prosecution with the lodgement of First
        Information Report. The ball is set to roll and thenceforth
        the law takes it's own course and the investigation ensures
c       in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction
        as such is rather limited and restricted and it's undue
        expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the
        event, however, the Court on a perusal of the complaint
        comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the
D       complaint or charge sheet on the fact of it does not
        constitute or disclose any offence alleged, there ought not
        to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the
        people and deal with the situations as is required under
        the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give
E       vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and
        such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be
        continued since the same is opposed to the concept of
        justice, which is paramount".

F      12. This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the
  guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts
  under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
  1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this Court has listed the categories
  of cases when the power under Section 482 can be exercised
G by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated
  by this Court in (1) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans
  Agro Industries Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 592; (2) Rajesh Bajaj v.
  State NCT of Delhi 1999 (3) SCC 259 and; (3) Zan du
  Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr
  (2005) 1 SCC 122. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
H observed that:
          RISHIPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.                     1023
                 [N.V. RAMANA, J.]

    ''The power under Section 482 of the Code should be used           A
    sparingly and with to prevent abuse of process of Court,
    but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two
    opinions on this, but if it appears to the trained judicial
    mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to
    abuse of process of Court, the power under Section 482             B
    of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be
    quashed". Also see Om Prakash and Ors. V. State of
    Jharkhand 3012 (12) sec 72.

     What emerges from the above judgments is that when a
prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests     C
to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the
case. The Courts have to see whether the continuation of the
complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether
continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage         D
of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that
quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends
of justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision,
the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in       E
the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not,
but it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell
into the disputed questions of fact.

     13. In the backdrop of the legal position, well settled by this
                                                                       F
Court through catena of judgements, we would like to deal with
the facts of the present case which lead to filing of the present
complaint against the appellant under Sections 34, 379, 411,
417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 l.P.C. on the file of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
                                                                       G
     14. The facts of the case which are not in dispute, for better
appreciation of the facts and arguments advanced on behalf
of the appellant, it is necessary for us to have a thorough look
at the letter dated 17th May, 2004 addressed to the appellanU
Branch Manager by respondent No.2.                       ·             H
    1024    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A       "Sir,

        It is requested that the Applicant has issued Cheque Book
        in which from Cheque No. 083691 to 083700 were 10
        cheques in Account No. 1132, out of which, payment up
        to Cheque No. 083696 has been received and·on rest of
B       the cheques are signature of the applicant/account holder.
        The above cheque book and other necessary payers were
        in my hand bag and I by Bus from Pikhuwa was coming
        to Ghaziabad then in the bust itself by mistake that bag
        was left and even on making to much search could not
c       found. Its information immediately I have given at the police
        station, Sihani Gate.

        Therefore, it is requested that you may treat the above
        cheques as cancelled and on that may not kindly make
D       payment to any person.

        It will be very kind of you".

       A reading of the above letter makes it very clear that the
  complainant has instructed the appellant/Branch Manager not
E to pass cheques bearing Nos. 083697 to 083700, the four
  cheques which were already signed. There is no dispute that
  after submitting the above letter to the appellant, when Cheque
  No. 083697 was presented in the Bank on 2ndf August, 2004,
  the same was not cleared by the appellant/Branch Manager in
F view of the letter of the complainant. Subsequently, the appellant
  was transferred from that Branch to Dhaulana Branch on 21st
  August, 2004, there was any instruction to the Bank to inform
  the account holder or police when the cheque is presented. It
  appears from the letter that only a request was made to the
G Bank that the said four cheques shall not.be honoured.

        15. If we look at the complaint and letter addressed by the
    complainant to the Branch Manager, the entire grievance of the
    complaint appears to be that basing on the written information
    which had been given to the appellant on 17th May, 2004, when
H
           RISH IPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.                     1025
                   [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
the stolen cheque was presented, he should have given a                  A
complaint to the police. As the appellant has not chosen to give
the complaint to the police, according to the complainant the
other accused hatched a conspiracy with the appellant - Branch
Manager and accordingly cheated him.
                                                                         B
       16. It is no doubt true that the Courts have to be very careful
while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the
same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious
complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal
law into motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it          C
has to be interdicted at the threshold. A clear reading of the
complaint does not make out any offence against the appellant/
Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under
Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 4771.P.C.
We are of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager
has violated the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit.     D
It all amounts to negligence in discharging official work at the
maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty.

      17. In view of our above discussion, we have come to an
irresistible conclusion that continuation of the criminal                E
proceedings against the appellant for commission of the
alleged offence under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420,
467, 458 and 477 l.P.C. is a pure abuse of process of law and
the complaint case deserves to be quashed in the interest of
justice.                                                                 F

     18. We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the
impugned judgment of the High Court by quashing the criminal
proceedings pending against the appellant in C.C. No. 2397
of 2012 under Sections 34, 379, 411, 418, 420, 467, 458 and
477 l.P.C. on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,          G
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

Devika Gujral                                          Appeal allowed.