Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 709 (MP)

Rajendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-06-24

M.C.GARG

body2014
ORDER 1. It is a very strange case where two brothers are fighting with each other and are misusing the process of the Court. 2. Trilok Singh, the second respondent who is the real brother of the first petitioner Rajendra Singh alleged to have obtained a claim from Insurance Company with respect to accident of his vehicle in 2001 to the tune of Rs.21,836/-. The said cheque was wrongly credited in the account of petitioner No.2 by mistake as admitted by the Bank. However, as the respondent/complainant-Triloksingh had some grudge, he lodged FIR for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 403 and 120-B of IPC against Rajendra Singh his brother and his wife Indrajeet Kaur after about 5 years of the receipt of the cheque i.e in the year 2006, alleging that the first petitioner got deposited the cheque of Rs.21,836/- in the account of his wife by manipulation and with wrongful intention to cheat the second respondent. 3. In the letter 18.9.2006 of the United India Insurance Company it has been mentioned that the payment towards the compensation was made by the said Company only to Shri Trilok Singh by means of payee account cheque. It is not understood as to how the cheque drawn in favour of Trilok Singh came to be deposited in the account of Indrajeet Kaur wife of Rajendra Singh. Accordingly the petitioners submitted that the crediting of the cheque in the account of the second petitioner by bank was a mistake and infact the bank paid back the money. There was no intention of cheating the respondent by the petitioners. He has relied upon the correspondence of the United India Insurance Company and the State Bank of India in this regard. There was no intention of cheating the respondent by the petitioners. He has relied upon the correspondence of the United India Insurance Company and the State Bank of India in this regard. The said letter is reproduced for the sake of reference :- fnukad 18-9-2006 lUnHkZ % 191303@eksVj 352&00@1054@06 Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh] Fkkuk ,e- vk;- th-] bUnkSj fo”k;%& vijk/k Øekad 884@06 /kkjk 419] 420 Hkkjrh; n.M fo/kku ds lEcUèk eas A egksn;~ mijksDr fo”k; eas vkidk i= Øekad ,e- vk;- th- 884@2@2006 fnukad 14-9-2006 dk lUnHkZ ysa] bl lEcU/k eas pkgh xbZ tkudkjh fcUnqokj izLrqr dj jgs gSa & 1- ‘kk[kk dk;kZy; }kjk psd Øekad 065739 fnukad 22-5-2001 #-21]836@& ;qfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] ‘kk[kk xhrkHkou] bUnkSj dk okgu Øekad MP09-GA-0011 nkok Øekad 31@352@2000 ds vUrxZr Jh f=yksdflag jktiky ds i{k eas js[kkafdr (A/c Payee) psd tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA 2- dk;kZy;hu vfHkys[k Dyse QkeZ o Hkqxrku nkok i=d eas n’kkZ, gLrk{kj ds vuqlkj mijksDr psd nkokdrkZ Jh f=yksdflag jktiky }kjk izkIr fd;k x;kA 3- nkok izdj.k Øekad 31@352@2000 dh leLr nLrkostksa dh lR;kfir izfr;k¡ layXu gSA 4- nkok psd ‘kk[kk dk;kZy; }kjk Hkqxrku nkok i=d ;Fkkkfof/k gLrk{kfjr dj izkIr gksus ij iznku fd;k x;kA bl lEca/k eas lEcafèkr vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ftlds }kjk@le{k psd iznku fd;k x;k] ,slk dksbZ vfHkys[k dk;kZy; eas ugha j[kk tkrk gSA 5- cSad vfHkys[kkuqlkj pSd Øekad 065739 fnukad 22-5-2001 jkf’k #i;s 21]836@& dk gekjs rkRdkfyd cSad ;qfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k ls fnukad 25-5-2001 dks Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gSA /kU;okn Hkonh; lyaXu% mijksDrkuqlkj ‘kk[kk izcU/kd 4. Reply also come in the form of letter written by the State Bank of Indore dated 29.4.2006 in which it has been stated that there was some mistake in the deposit of cheque in the account of Indrajeet Kaur. This letter is available in the record of the police. Despite that a challan was filed against the petitioner and his wife for having committed offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 403 and 120-B of IPC. 5. This letter is available in the record of the police. Despite that a challan was filed against the petitioner and his wife for having committed offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 403 and 120-B of IPC. 5. Infact the bank even paid a sum of Rs.21,836/- to Shri Trilok Singh, the complainant as per their letter dated 24.12.2005 The letter is reproduced hereunder :- “Shri Trilok Singh Rajpal, 166, Anurag Nagar, Behind Shalimar Township, Indore 452010 (M.P.) Dear Sir Payment of Cheque No.65739 dated 22.5.2001 With reference to your letter No.0011 dated 7.10.2005 on the above matter, we inform you that the proceeds of cheque No.065739 dated 22.5.2001 were collected by us as the above cheque was deposited with us for collection. As you have mentioned in your aforesaid letter that no account is held by you with this branch, we enclose herewith cheque No.106216 dated 24.12.2005 in payment of the proceeds of above cheque collected by us. The inconvenience caused to you in this regard is regretted. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sign, Chief Manager” 6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, the complainant is facing about 7-8 cases which he says have been instituted against him at the instance of the petitioners. This itself shows the reasons for prosecution of the petitioners in this case. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners have already deposited the amount of the aforesaid cheque in the account of the Bank. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice a letter dated 29.4.2006 written by the State Bank of Indore accepting the receipt of sum of Rs.21,836/- from Indrajeet Kaur with respect to a wrong entry in her account. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Bank vide letter dated 24.12.2005 already made the aforesaid payment to Trilok Singh which is before the complaint. 8. Considering all these facts I am of the considered view that filing of the FIR and the challan by the police is a misuse of the process of the Court and is only an attempt to harass the petitioners at the instance of the complainant. In such like case applying the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal AIR 1992 SC 604 of which the prosecution should be required to be quashed. 9. In such like case applying the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal AIR 1992 SC 604 of which the prosecution should be required to be quashed. 9. Consequently, the FIR No.884 dated 12.9.2006 registered at the instance of the second respondent, at Police Station MIG and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed as well as the proceedings in MCrC No.30091/2007 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class or in the Sessions Court and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The bail bonds of the petitioners shall stand discharged.