Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioners, a private limited company engaged in export and import business along with its directors, filed a criminal revisional application seeking quashing of a complaint case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Kolkata, registered under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint was filed by Opposite Party No. 2, a financial company, alleging that the petitioners had failed to repay a loan of Rs. 50 Lakhs disbursed on 21.03.2016, despite repeated demands, and had threatened the complainant with dire consequences. The petitioners contended that the entire loan liability had been discharged in December 2016, partly by cheque and partly in cash, and that the complaint was baseless and an abuse of the process of court.
Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioners had made false statements on oath in the first revisional application, contrasting them with averments made in a subsequent revisional application being CRR No. 1450 of 2022, which sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant pointed out that while the first application claimed full repayment in cash, the second application filed over two years later contained no such averment or pleading regarding repayment of the Rs. 50 Lakhs, thereby suggesting deliberate falsehood to obstruct the administration of justice.
The matter raised important questions concerning inconsistent sworn statements made by the same petitioners in two separate revisional proceedings arising from interlinked financial transactions, and the applicability of Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiation of proceedings for perjury and fabrication of false evidence before the High Court.
Catchwords:
quashing of complaint · criminal revision · false statements on oath · Section 340 CrPC · perjury · abuse of process · loan transaction · criminal breach of trust · cheating · criminal conspiracy · Negotiable Instruments Act · inconsistent pleadings
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
