Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 724 (RAJ)

Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner complainant assailing the order dated 1.10.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur in Cr. Case/F.R. No. 358/2009 and the order dated 18.7.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jodhpur in revision. The learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the Final Report filed by the Police after investigation of FIR No. 389/2009 and the revisional court has affirmed the said order. Now the complainant has approached this Court assailing the orders passed by this Court and praying that the respondents be sent for trial for the offences under Sections 406, 418, 420, 422, 427, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 447 and 120B I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur against the respondents No. 2 to 5 on 23.9.2009. The allegation levelled in the complaint was that the petitioner had business dealings with the respondents for about 5 years. He had given some blank cheques to the respondents as security. The complainant further alleged that the blank cheques were given to the two firms M/s.Prince Harbals and Pal Harbals in lieu of proposed dealership agreement. The complainant further alleged that a settlement was arrived at between the parties and as per the terms of the settlement, the complainant was given time upto 20.12.2009 for making the complete payment towards the settlement and if the payment was not made, the firms would be entitled to take legal action against the complainant. The complainant alleged that even before the lapse of agreed period of 12 months, the firms presented the security cheques of the complainant for encashment and thereafter, malaciously started prosecuting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The complainant's case was thus that as the cheques given by him to the two firms as security were got dishonored malafidely and by misusing the same, the firms and their partners committed the offences for which the complaint was filed. The complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation, where FIR No. 389/09 was registered and investigation commenced. 4. The Police after upon investigation found no prima-facie case to be made out against the accused and accordingly a Final Report was filed in the court concerned. The complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation, where FIR No. 389/09 was registered and investigation commenced. 4. The Police after upon investigation found no prima-facie case to be made out against the accused and accordingly a Final Report was filed in the court concerned. The complainant challenged the Final Report by filing a protest petition and examined himself in support of the protest petition. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by a detailed order dated 1.10.2010 proceeded to reject the protest petition of the complainant and accepted the Final Report. The learned Magistrate found that the complainant's case was based on an alleged agreement entered into between the parties on 20.2.2009. The learned Magistrate perused the agreement and found that the same was just a letter written by the petitioner to the Director of M/s.Prince Harbals, Sriganganagar. The letter was signed by one Vijay Verma and Ramesh Chandra Rajpurohit claiming to be ASM and TSM of Prince Harbals company. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the letter was not ratified by any of the partners of the firm, so as to be of any advantage to the complainant. The learned Magistrate also held that the complainant's own agreed case was that he was under an obligation to make payment of the instalments to the firms in lieu of the agreement. It was found that the complainant failed to do so on which the cheques held by the firms were presented for encashment and were dishonoured because of insufficient funds. The learned Magistrate thus rightly held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was nothing but a counterblast to the prosecution initiated against him for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The said order of the learned Magistrate has also been affirmed by the revisional court and rightly so in the opinion of this Court. 5. In view of the above discussion and after appreciating the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the orders impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has committed no error, illegality or perversity in rejecting the protest petition filed by the petitioner in this case and in accepting the Final Report filed by the Police. From the sequence of events, which have been narrated above, it is evident that the Final Report was based on sound reasons. From the sequence of events, which have been narrated above, it is evident that the Final Report was based on sound reasons. It is apparent that the complainant filed the complaint as a counterblast to the prosecution for bouncing of cheques, which had been initiated against him on behalf of the two firms. Thus, the case is squarely covered by the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. M/s.Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd . & Ors. Reported in (1999)8 SCC 468 . The misc. petition thus being bereft of any force is hereby rejected. Stay petition is also rejected.Petition dismissed. *******