Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1107 (MP)

Mohammad Saleem v. State of M. P.

2015-10-16

M.C.GARG

body2015
ORDER 1. I have gone through records of the case and I find that in this case, original case setup by the petitioner was that he took a loan of Rs.3 lacs from respondent No.2 but he could not pay the same. He was being harassed and was being compelled to sign a blank stamp paper of Rs.100/- and was also made to give two blank cheques to the complainant. He, therefore, filed a complaint about his harassment on 21.6.2014. It may, however, be mentioned that neither the number of the stamp paper nor the details of the cheques, which were issued was mentioned in this complaint. 2. It was further case of the petitioner that later on, he paid a sum of Rs.4,31,000/- to respondent No.2 on 15.7.2014 in lieu of a loan of Rs.3 lacs in presence of two witnesses and also agreed to withdraw the complaint dated 21.6.2014 on also being assured by the respondent No.2 to return the blank stamp papers and also the two blank cheques. It is at this juncture, he mentioned the cheque numbers 691012 of PNB and 038382 of the ICICI Bank. 3. It is further alleged that since the cheques were not returned, he lodged a report to the police. It is at this juncture, he mentioned the cheque numbers 691012 of PNB and 038382 of the ICICI Bank. 3. It is further alleged that since the cheques were not returned, he lodged a report to the police. The said report reads as under : ßlsok esa] Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; Fkkuk xksgyiqj tcyiqj e-iz- fo"k; % lwn[kksj eks- eqche }kjk eq>s izrkfM+r fd;k tk jgk gS dk;Zokgh djus ckcr~A egksn; th] fuosnu ;g fd eks- eqchu [kku firk fljkt [kku] fuoklh cM+h vkserh u;k eksgYyk Naxkey rsy okys ds cktw esa eqchu [kku okys }kjk eq>s tku ls ekjus dh èkedh nh tk jgh gSA egksn; th eSa eks- lyhe firk vCnqy jghe fuoklh xksgyiqj uxhuk efLtn ds ikl fuokl djrk gw¡A esjk Qyksa dk dkjckj Ñf"k mit eaMh esa gS eSaus eqchu [kku ls fnuk¡d 2-1-2014 dks 3]00]000@& #i;s ¼rhu yk[k #i;s½ lwn ij fy;k Fkk Qyksa dk dkjksckj lapkfyr djus ds fy, eqchu [kku us ml oDr gels ,d dksjs LVkai ij gLrk{kj djk fy;k Fkk nks CySd pSd gLrk{kj djk dj crkSj xkajVh fy;k FkkA egksn; th eSaus mldh jde lwn lesr N% ekg esa ykSVk fn;k blh chp gels mldk fookn Hkh gqvk Fkk eSaus bldh f'kdk;r 20-6-2014 dks Fkkuk xksgyiqj esa nh FkhA eqchu [kku us esjs NksVs HkkbZ dh eksVj lkbZdy Nhu yh Fkh ftldk uEcj ,eih20@,eds&6369 gS] esjs vkosnu yxkus ij mlds }kjk esjh eksVj lkbZdy mlus okil dj nh Fkh] ,oa esjs }kjk LVkai vkSj nks pSd nwljs fnu nsus dks dgdj eq>ls vkilh le>kSrk ukek cuokdj Fkkuk xksgyiqj esa ns fn;k tc eSaus nwljs fnu viuk xkajVh LVkai ,oa nks pSd ek¡xk rks VkyeVksy djus yxk vc eq>ls bl cnys esa vkSj #i;s dh ek¡x djus yxk vkSj >wBk izdj.k Fkkuk vkserh esa ntZ djkus dh /kedh ,oa iSlk uk nsus ij tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsrk gS ,oa esjs ihNs xqaMs cnek'kksa dks yxk j[kk gS vk, fnu esjs ?kj nl&ckjg cnek'kksa ds lkFk esjs ?kj ij vkdj xkyh&xyksp djrk gS o #i;s dh ek¡x djrk gS o eq>s ijs'kku djrk gSA egksn; th vki ls fuosnu gS lwn[kksj ls gekjh tku cpkus dk d"V djsaA egksn; th esjk ifjokj mDr O;fDr rFkk cnek'kksa dh /kedh ds dkj.k Hk;Hkhr gS rFkk esjs lkFk dksbZ Hkh gknlk gks ldrk gS esjs cqtqxZ ekrk&firk Hkh lnes esa gS ,oa esjk iwjk ifjokj ng'kr esa ftanxh xqtkjus ij etcwj gks x;k gSA egksn; th ges bu cnek'kksa ls NqVdkjk fnyk,a o bu ij dM+h dk;Zokgh djokus dk d"V djsaA fnuk¡d 12-9-2014 izkFkhZ eksgEen lyhe firk vCnqy jghe fuoklh 532 uxhuk efLtn xksgyiqj tcyiqj e-iz- izfrfyfi & Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn;] xksgyiqj tcyiqjÞ 4. It may be mentioned that in this complaint also there was no mention about the details of the cheque numbers allegedly given by the petitioner to respondent No.2. 5. According to the petitioner, thereafter he moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed but later on he was arrested and released on regular bail by order dated 29.10.2014. It may be mentioned that in this complaint also there was no mention about the details of the cheque numbers allegedly given by the petitioner to respondent No.2. 5. According to the petitioner, thereafter he moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed but later on he was arrested and released on regular bail by order dated 29.10.2014. The said order, for the sake of reference is reproduced as under : ßvkosnd@vkjksih }kjk vf/koDrk Jh vkj-ds- ds'kjokuh mi-A jkT; }kjk Jh mn; pksydj,thih mi-A vkifÙkdrkZ lfgr vf/koDrk Jh vk'kh"k ngk;r vfèk-A vkosnd@vkjksih dh vksj ls /kkjk 439 naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds varxZr izLrqr tekur vkosnu&i= dks izFke tekur vkosnu dgk x;k gS rFkk leFkZu esa 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA tekur vkosnu bl vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd vkosnd dks ekeys esa >wBk Q¡lk;k x;k gSA vkosnd dh vksj ls /kkjk 438 naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds varxZr vkosnu&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk tks fd fnukad 13-10-2014 dks bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS fd Fkkuk vkserh esa izdj.k iathc) ugha FkkA iqfyl Fkkuk vkserh }kjk iwNrkN ds fy;s cqyk, tkus ij vkosnd Fkkus ij x;k Fkk tgk¡ ij mls fxjrkj dj fy;k x;kA vkosnd dk pSd tks xqe gks x;k Fkk ftldk Qfj;knh }kjk nq#i;ksx fd;k x;k gSA vkosnd tcyiqj dk LFkk;h fuoklh gSA vkosnd ds Hkkxus rFkk Qjkj gksus dh laHkkouk ugha gSA bl izdkj mijksDr vk/kkj ij tekur ij vktkn fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA vkosnu ds lkFk /kkjk 438 na-iz-la-a ds varxZr izLrqr vkosnu&i=] vkns'k fnukad 13-10-2014 dh Nk;kizfr] Qy foØsrk laca/kh nLrkost] [kkyh pSd] [kkyh LVkai ,oa iatkc us'kuy cSad ds pSd dh dkmVaj izfr] iqfyl egkfujh{kd ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd dks fn;k x;k vkosnu dh izfr] iSlk pqdrk gksus dk nLrkost rFkk Fkkuk xksgyiqj esa dh xbZ f'kdk;r dh Nk;kizfr] izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vkifÙkdrkZ dh vksj ls bl vk/kkj ij vkifÙk izLrqr dh xbZ gS fd vfHk;qDr dks fofHkUu fnukadks esa #i;s dh vko';drk gksus ij dqy lksyg yk[k lÙkj gtkj #i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds ,ot esa vfHk;qDr@vkosnd }kjk psd fnukad 16-6-2014 tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk ckn esa mlds }kjk LVkai isesaV djk fn;k x;k FkkA vkosnd@vfHk;qDr }kjk fnukad 17-10-2014 dks Qfj;knh ds lkFk >wek&>Vdh dh xbZ gS ftlls mldh dykbZ rFkk lhus esa [kjksap vk;k gSA bl izdkj mijksDr vk/kkj ij tekur vkosnu [kkfjt djus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA 'kklu dh vksj ls,thih }kjk Hkh tekur vkosnu dk fojks/k fd;k x;kA mHk;i{kksa dks lquk x;k rFkk dsl Mk;jh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vfHk;kstu ekeys ds vuqlkj fnukad 12-9-2014 dks eqchu [kku }kjk Fkkuk vkserh esa lwpuk nh xbZ fd mldk vCnqy lyhe ls O;olkf;d ysu&nsu pyrk FkkA vCnqy lyhe esa mlls fnukad 27-11-2013 ls 15-12-2013 rd O;olk; gsrq lksyg yk[k lÙkj gtkj #i;s fy;s Fks tc viuh jde ek¡xh rc vCnqy lyhe us vuqcaèk&i= nks xokgksa ds le> fy[kdj fn;k lkFk gh iatkc us'kuy cSda dk pSd Hkh fn;k ftls vius [kkrs esa tek djus ij pSd ckmal gks x;kA tc cSad esa tkdj tkudkjh yh rks cSad }kjk crk;k x;k fd] psd xqe gksus dh lwpuk nsdj LVkai isesaV djk fn;k x;k gSA Fkkuk vkserh }kjk vijk/k Ø-538@14 /kkjk 420 Hkk-na-la ds vUrxZr ekeyk iathc) fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 13-10-2014 dks iqfyl Fkkuk vkserh }kjk izfrosnu fn;k x;k Fkk fd] vkosnd ds fo#) dksbZ ekeyk iathc) ugha fd;k x;k gS blds ckn vkosnd@vkjksih dks fnukad 17-10-2014 dks fxjrkj fd;k x;k gSA iqfyl Fkkuk vkserh }kjk bl vk/kkj ij fojks/k fd;k x;k gS fd ekeys dh foospuk viw.kZ gS rFkk tekur gksus ij vkosnd lkf{k;ksa dks izHkkfor dj ldrk gSA dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd lkf{k;ksa ds c;ku fy;s tk pqds gSaA fnukad 18-10-2014 dks eseksjs.Me fjdkMZ fd;k x;k gSA izfrosnu ls fdlh izdkj dh tIrh dh dk;Zokgh 'ks"k gksuk izdV ugha gksrk gSA nksuksa i{kksa ds chp] vkilh ysu&nsu dk fookn gSA vkosnd dh vksj ls pSd xqe gksus ds lacaèk esa Fkkuk izHkkjh dksrokyh tcyiqj dks rFkk cSad izca/kd iatkc us'kuy cSad dks lwpuk nsus dh dkWih izLrqr dh xbZ gS rFkk mlds laca/k esa fnukad 26-3-2013 dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vr,o ekeys dh laiw.kZ rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izLrqr tekur vkosnu&i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd@vkjksih dh vksj ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds larks"kizn ;fn rhl gtkj #i;s dh l{ke tekur,oa bruh gh jkf'k dk ca/ki= izLrqr fd;k tk, rks mls tekur ij fjgk fd;k tk,A vkns'k dh izfrfyfi v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks lwpukFkZ ,oa ikyukFkZ Hksth tk,A izdj.k iath esa ntZ dj vfHkys[kkxkj izsf"kr gksAÞ 6. A perusal of the order goes to show that there was a reference of the two cheques allegedly given by the petitioner of PNB. With respect to both these cheques, a letter to the Bank was written by the petitioner for stopping payment of those cheques. The said letter written by the petitioner is dated 3.11.2014. 7. In the complaint, Annexure A-7, the two cheques about which there was a reference made of having being given to respondent No.2 is regarding cheque No.691012 of PNB and cheque No.038382 of ICICI Bank. 8. There is also a reference about the loss of the cheque book bearing numbers 456720 to 456780. 9. It has come that the cheques were given by the petitioner to respondent No.2 as per the agreement dated 6.1.2014. According to the petitioner, it is in police custody, he came to know about the presentation of cheque No.456734 of PNB, for which he submits that had been lost and for which he also lodged a report. At this stage, it may be observed that in his earlier complaint, he did not gave the number of cheque No.456734 of the PNB as cheques given by him to the complainant. Moreover, in the bail application, it has come that this cheque was got stop payment by the petitioner. 10. At this stage, it may be observed that in his earlier complaint, he did not gave the number of cheque No.456734 of the PNB as cheques given by him to the complainant. Moreover, in the bail application, it has come that this cheque was got stop payment by the petitioner. 10. FIR of this case was registered on 16.10.2014 which is based upon a document dated 2.1.2014, which reads as under : ßizfr] Jheku~ Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn;] Fkkuk vkserh ftyk&tcyiqj e-iz fo"k; % /kks[kk/kM+h dh ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- djus ckor~A egksn; th] fuosnu gS fd eSa eqchu [kku firk Jh fljkt [kku fuoklh 633 Fkkuk gfjtu ds ihNs] u;k eksgYyk esa jgrk g¡wA egksn; esjk vCnqy lyhe firk vCnqy jghe fuoklh 532 uxhuk efLtn ds ikl xksgyiqj ls O;olkf;d ysu&nsu pyrk FkkA vCnqy lyhe us eq>ls fnukad 27-11-2013 ls 15-12-2013 rd O;olk; gsrq #i;s 16]70]000@& ¼lksyg yk[k lÙkj gtkj½ fy,A tc eSus viuh jde okil ek¡xh rks eq>s vCnqy lyhe us ,d vuqcaèk&i= nks xokg ftuds uke eksgEen fj;kt mlekuh ,oa fQjkst [kku ;kegk feL=h ds le{k fy[kdj fn;k vkSj ,d pSd iatkc us'kuy cSad 'kk[kk cM+k Qqgkjk tcyiqj ftldk Øekad 456734 jkf'k 16]70]000@& fnukad 16-6-2014 ih-Mh-lh- pSd fn;kA tks eSus fnukad 16-6-2014 dks vius [kkrs esa tek fd;k rks og pSd ckmal gks x;kA tc eSaus cSad tkdj pSd ds ckjs esa tkudkjh pkgh rks cSad vf/kdkjh us eq>s crk;k fd vCnqy lyhe us bl Øekad pSd&cqd dh xqe gks tkus dh lwpuk dk gokyk nsdj bl pSd&cqd dh lkjs pSdks dks LVkai isesaV igys gh djk fn;k gSA rc eq>s irk pyk fd vCnqy lyhe us esjs lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h dh gSA vr% egksn; th ls fuosnu gS fd vCnqy lyhe ds Åij ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ dj mfpr dk;Zokgh djus dh Ñik djsaA fnukad % 12-9-2014 izkFkhZ LFkku % tcyiqj eqchu [kku fuoklh 633 gfjtu ds ihNs] u;k eksgYyk] tcyiqj e-iz- eksckby % 9300562241Þ 11. According to the petitioner, this is a mala fide FIR inasmuch as with respect to the cheque in question, the petitioner was not given any notice under section 138 but straightaway a complaint had been filed under section 420 of the IPC. He also submits that since earlier also, there was a transaction between the parties, he repaid the loan after he was forced to sign two blank cheques and one stamp paper to the respondent No.2 about which he had also lodged a report. 12. He also submits that since earlier also, there was a transaction between the parties, he repaid the loan after he was forced to sign two blank cheques and one stamp paper to the respondent No.2 about which he had also lodged a report. 12. However, considering the entirety of the facts and without commenting any further, I find that there seems to be falsity in the allegation of the petitioner with respect to giving of the two cheques to the respondents as the cheques numbers which were given in the report earlier lodged by the petitioner are not the cheques which were being used for the purpose as levelled in this petition by the petitioner regarding loss of a cheque-book was not even mentioned in his original complaint, which he promised to withdraw, i.e., complaint dated 21.6.2014 as quoted above. 13. As such, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to quash the proceedings as issue raised by the petitioner in this petition may ofcourse be taken by him as defence during the course of prosecution. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. ...........