Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 616 (UTT)

Narender Kumar Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Kashyap

2013-09-30

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U. C. Dhyani, J. 1. The applicant, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.658 of 2009 titled as Vinod Kumar vs. Narender Kumar & another under Sections 380, 411, 467, 468, 471 & 504 I.P.C. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court. 2. The complainant/respondent filed a criminal complaint case against 2 accused persons, including the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411, 120-B, 420, 504, 506, 467, 468 & 471 IPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The complainant/respondent entered into the witness-box under Section 200 Cr. P.C. Satya Prakash CW1 and Preet Kamal CW2 were examined under Section 202 Cr. P.C. Documentary evidence was also filed on behalf of the complainant. After considering the statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr. P.C. and the documentary evidence on record, the present applicant was summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411, 467, 468, 471 & 504 I.P.C., vide order dated 18.06.2009. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was moved on behalf of accused-applicant. 3. The respondent alleged, among other things, that since he had to give his cheque-book to the financier to enable him to finance a tempo, therefore, he appended his signatures on the blank cheques, which were stolen away by the accused-applicant. Respondent further alleged that he did not see the accused-applicant committing theft of his cheque book. He came to know of the same through his acquaintance, namely, Preet Kamal. When the respondent went to the shop of the accused-applicant, he hurled abuses at the respondent. It is admitted by respondent/complainant in para 6 of the complaint that the present applicant instituted a criminal case against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Thus, this fact is admitted that the applicant instituted a criminal complaint case against the respondent under Section 138 of the Act. A bare reading of the contents of the complaint case filed by respondent against the applicant smacks of vindictiveness. It appears to be a counterblast to settle the score against the applicant. 4. Thus, this fact is admitted that the applicant instituted a criminal complaint case against the respondent under Section 138 of the Act. A bare reading of the contents of the complaint case filed by respondent against the applicant smacks of vindictiveness. It appears to be a counterblast to settle the score against the applicant. The contents of the complaint are in the form of defence taken in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act by the respondent. It appears as if the respondent is giving defence in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act to say that he appended his signatures on blank cheques, and the cheque book was stolen away by the applicant. The respondent himself did not see the applicant stealing away the cheque-book. He was told by someone else (i.e. Preet Kamal) that he saw the chequebook of respondent/complainant in possession of the applicant. What business Preet Kamal had to see the cheque book in the shop of the applicant? Nobody usually appends his signatures on the blank cheques, without assigning any reason. The facts of the present complaint case suggest as if the respondent is creating the defence evidence for him to counterblast the case under Section 138 of the Act. The ulterior motive of him is writ large on the face of the contents of the complaint. The present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited and another vs. Rajiv Dubey (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 603. 5. Mahindra and Mahindra’s case (supra) relied upon the ruling of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal AIR, 1992 SC 604. It appears that the criminal proceedings filed by respondent in the instant case are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance to settle the score against the present applicant, who filed criminal proceedings against respondent under Section 138 of the Act. This Court, therefore, should step in and interfere in exercise of its’ inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 6. In view of above, application under Section 482 Cr. This Court, therefore, should step in and interfere in exercise of its’ inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 6. In view of above, application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is allowed and the summoning order dated 18.06.2009 alongwith the proceedings of Criminal Case No.658 of 2009 titled as Vinod Kumar vs. Narender Kumar and another under Sections 380, 411, 467, 468, 471 & 504 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar are hereby quashed.