Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed where charge-sheet materials prima facie disclose cheque alteration for wrongful gain.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that he purchased the petitioner’s share in the business “Lakshya Ventures” under a Business Purchase Agreement dated 11 February 2021.

The agreement referred to a cheque for ₹4,50,000 dated 30 April 2021.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner altered the cheque’s date to 30 September 2021 and presented it for payment, despite having received substantial payments under the transaction.

After respondent No. 2’s private complaint, police registered an FIR and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 IPC; the Magistrate took cognizance.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, relying, among other things, on respondent No. 2’s acquittal in the petitioner’s separate proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the absence of an FSL report.

The State and respondent No. 2 opposed the petition.

1. Whether the complaint and charge-sheet materials disclosed a sufficient prima facie basis for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC to refuse quashing under Section 482 CrPC

2. Whether the acquittal in the Section 138 NI Act proceeding and the absence of an FSL report warranted quashing the criminal proceedings at this stage

The petitioner invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, including to consider a request to quash criminal proceedings.

The charge-sheet offences at issue were Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court assessed the complaint and investigation materials on a prima facie basis and considered whether the allegations and materials justified allowing the proceedings to continue.

It also noted that police could file an additional charge-sheet under Section 173(8) CrPC after obtaining the FSL report.

The judgment cited no precedent and did not set out a separate formulation of the statutory ingredients of the IPC offences.

The Court found that the cheque in question was the cheque referred to in the Business Purchase Agreement and that the charge-sheet alleged its date had been altered.

It also noted the petitioner’s admitted receipt of multiple payments from respondent No. 2’s wife, the apparent alteration visible on a prima facie examination of the cheque, and witness statements connecting the cheque to the business transaction and alleging alteration for wrongful gain.

The Section 138 proceeding did not address the alleged alteration, and the absence of the FSL report was not decisive because the police had sent the cheque for examination and sought liberty to file an additional charge-sheet after receiving the report.

In light of those materials and the seriousness of the allegations, the Court declined to terminate the proceedings at the quashing stage.

It left the petitioner at liberty to apply for discharge before the trial court.