Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 313 (PAT)

Rameshwar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-09

MADHAVENDRA SARAN

body2007
Judgment 1. This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short as Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.9.2003 passed by learned CJM, Aurangabad in GR no. 1173/2002/ Tr. No. 1541/2003 arising out of Aurangabad Town PS case no. 282/02 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance u/ss 467, 468, 469, 471 and 420 of the IPC. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that petitioner Rameshwar Singh was the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Aurangabad branch. On 21.6.2002 he lodged a written report before Aurangabad PS that on 12.4.2002 two cheques were brought by one Ved Prakash Rai to the Bank numbered as 363160 for Rs. 10 lacs and 383161 for Rs. 18,79,943/-. After transfer of the cheque amount in the account of Ved Prakash Rai he issued ten cheques in the name of different persons for payment but in the meantime, one Satyajit Kumar Singh intervened in the matter not directly, rather, informed the bank that his cheque book nos. 363160 and 363161 were lost. As the cheque book nos. mentioned in the information given by Satyajit Kumar Singh in his petition tallied with cheque brought by Ved Prakash Rai, payment was stopped. Ved Prakash Rai was putting pressure for encashment of the cheque amount but since Satyajit was saying the cheques were not issued by him to Ved Prakash Rai nor was the same signed by him and so the petitioner sent the signatures over disputed cheques alongwith admitted signature of Satyajit Kumar Singh to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents Central Forensic Institute, Kolkata and received report that both the cheques do not bear signature of Satyajit Kumar Singh. After receipt of the report the petitioner lodged the present case before the police. It appears that police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and Satyajit Kumar Singh. Learned CJM, Aurangabad by order dated 15.9.2003 took cognizance u/ss 174, 175, 198, 204, 409, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 474, 477A, 120B, 201/34 of the IPC. Against the said order of cognizance petitioner has filed the present application for quashing. 3. It appears that police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and Satyajit Kumar Singh. Learned CJM, Aurangabad by order dated 15.9.2003 took cognizance u/ss 174, 175, 198, 204, 409, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 474, 477A, 120B, 201/34 of the IPC. Against the said order of cognizance petitioner has filed the present application for quashing. 3. Learned counsel in support of the petitioners case submitted that on 12.4.2002 the two cheques were produced by Ved Prakash Rai and the amount was transferred in his account assuming the same as genuine and on the next date the application of Satyajit Kumar Singh came and then the petitioner being Manager of the Bank stopped the payment and sent two cheques along with admitted signature of Satyajit Kumar Singh to government agency for comparison. After receipt of the report that the signature was of different person the petitioner under the direction of superior officers retransferred the amount in the account of Satyajit Kumar Singh and allowed him to withdraw the payment. He submitted that if the whole chain of circumstances are taken in its face value no offence against the petitioner is made out. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of prosecution raised the following points: (i) That on 12.4.2002 Ved Prakash Rai deposited two cheques purported to by issued by Satyajit Kumar Singh; (ii) That after verifying the signature the amount under the two cheques was credited in the account of Ved Prakash Rai on 12.4.2002; (iii) That on 13.4.2002 (Saturday) Satyajit Kumar informed the Bank that the two cheques alongwith cheque book was lost as such payment, if any, should be stopped; (iv) That on 15.4.2002 (Monday) letter dated 13.4.2002 from the Bank was received by brother of Ved Prakash Rai and Ved Prakash Rai on the same date submitted a copy of letter dated 12.4.2002 confirming the payment by, two cheques to Ved Prakash Rai by Satyajit Kumar Singh to the Bank. Letter of confirmation was issued by Satyajit Kumar Singh. 5. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner sent only two deposited cheques alongwith admitted signature of Satyajit Kumar Singh for signature verification. He did not send the confirmation letter as issued by Satyajit Kumar Singh for signature verification along with two deposited cheques. He pointed out if the cheques and the covering letter both were sent together for confirmation of signature the truth would have come out. He did not send the confirmation letter as issued by Satyajit Kumar Singh for signature verification along with two deposited cheques. He pointed out if the cheques and the covering letter both were sent together for confirmation of signature the truth would have come out. He further pointed out that police through court obtained report dated 31.10.02 from the government agency that the letter of confirmation was genuine document issued by Satyajit Kumar Singh confirming issuance of two cheques to Ved Prakash Rai. He further submitted that Questioned Documents report dated 10.6.2002 was received by the petitioner but no FIR was lodged on that. He further submitted that the amount was allowed to be withdrawn by Satyajit Kumar Singh on 21.6.2002 then FIR was lodged and thus, all the circumstances on its face value show the petitioner and Satyajit Kumar Singh are guilty of criminal conspiracy to cheat and falsely implicate Ved Prakash Rai. 6. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate examined the averments made in the charge sheet filed u/s 173 of the Code and after being satisfied that prima facie case has been made out against the accused named in column 11 of the charge sheet took cognizance of the offence mentioned above. Impugned order thus indicates application of judicial mind and satisfaction of the Magistrate. 7. After hearing both the parties, at this stage, I do not find any error in the impugned order of cognizance. 8. This application is, accordingly dismissed. 9. The petitioner however, will be at liberty to raise all the points at the time framing of charge which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by a reasoned order without being prejudiced by the present order of dismissal.