Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 280 (MP)

Atul Singh Baghel v. Amit Singh

2015-03-10

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. Heard on the question of maintainability of the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The office has made the objection that the applicant has moved the present petition against the order passed by the trial Court whereby, a criminal complaint was registered against the applicant and therefore, a revision would have been filed. However, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has filed some documents which are not on record of the trial Court and therefore, for quashing of the registration of the complaint, it is for the applicant to file a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 3. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the objection raised by the office is hereby waived. 4. Heard on admission. 5. The facts of the case in short is that, a criminal complaint has been registered by the JMFC, Satna at Complaint Case No.2914/2011 against the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, the charges have been framed against the applicant vide order dated 20.1.2014. 6. The applicant has filed some documents to show that cheque no.890503 was not received by the applicant when he received the cheque book in the year 2006. Also the applicant wrote a letter to the Bank Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Satna about the missing of that particular cheque. The applicant had lodged an FIR dated 11.8.2011 to SHO, Kolgawan that the complainant/respondent no.1 had torn off four cheques from his cheque book and thereafter, a false cheque has been filed before the concerned Bank for its payment. The applicant has also sent an intimation to the concerned Branch Manager to stop payment of that cheque. In demand notice given by the respondent no.1 a detailed reply was given by the applicant though description of the reply given by the applicant was not mentioned by the complainant in his complaint. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 should be quashed. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 should be quashed. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and others" : (2009 CRI.L.J. 822) and on an order passed by the Single Bench of Patna High Court in the case of "Premwati Das Vs. Thakur Das" : (1975 CRI.L.J. 880). 7. So far as the order passed by the Patna High Court is concerned, it would be apparent that it was related to an order in discharging of the accused. It is not a case where the applicant is discharged and the law laid for provision under Section 253 and 254 of the Cr.P .C is not applicable in the present case. Similarly, the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar (supra) relates to "Consideration of" by Magistrate whereas, the present case is nothing but, a case of summons trial and at the time of framing of the charges the Magistrate has nothing to do except to frame the charges on the basis of the documents produced by the complainant before registration of the complaint case. Exactly in the present case, the order relating to the framing of the charges cannot be challenged independently. It was for the applicant to challenge the order by which the complaint was registered initially. It is surprising that the applicant did not challenge that order of registration within time by a revision application. In the present case, he has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the criminal complaint. 8. The applicant took two contradictory defence in the case. Firstly, when he received the cheque book, cheque no.890503 was missing and secondly, four cheques were taken by the complainant from his cheque book and he had lodged a case of theft against the complainant. When a petition under Section482 of the Cr.P .C is considered, documents filed by the applicant can be considered. The Apex Court has a settled view that only such documents can be considered while quashing the proceedings of a criminal trial when the document filed by the applicant is a public document or a document which is beyond doubt. When a petition under Section482 of the Cr.P .C is considered, documents filed by the applicant can be considered. The Apex Court has a settled view that only such documents can be considered while quashing the proceedings of a criminal trial when the document filed by the applicant is a public document or a document which is beyond doubt. In this present case, document Annexure D/1 are the counter folios of cheque book and Annexure D/2 is a report sent to the Bank Manager. However, it is no where clear by the document Annexure D/2 that in which year that application was given. According to the document Annexure D/1, first cheque was issued on 11.5.2006 and therefore, the applicant had that cheque book since the year 2006 and he wrote for stoppage of payment in the year 2011. In document Annexure D/2, it appears that the application was given on 12.5. but, neither the Bank Manager nor the applicant had written the date of application so that it may be considered that it was given in the year 2006. Similarly FIR Annexure D/4 is a doubtful document. There is no seal or any other impression of S.H.O., Kolgawan that such FIR was received in the Police Station on the given date. Reply of notice Annexure D/6 is nothing but, a document prepared by the applicant himself for defence. Hence after considering the entire document filed by the applicant, it cannot be said that the documents are beyond doubt and no offence is made out against the applicant. It is for the applicant to prove his defence by these documents at the stage of defence evidence. Hence, it is not a case where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P .C may be invoked and the petition filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Cr.P .C may be accepted. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the complainant has added one more person as a witness and his application is accepted by the trial Court whereas, it cannot be done by the trial Court. There is no such provision in the Cr.P.C. Such argument is not at all connected for consideration of the present petition. It is for the applicant to file different petitions for different cause of actions. There is no such provision in the Cr.P.C. Such argument is not at all connected for consideration of the present petition. It is for the applicant to file different petitions for different cause of actions. It is surprising that the applicant did not file the present petition until the trial Court has framed the charges. With these documents, he could come before this Court when he had received the first notice of registration of the criminal complaint. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P .C filed by the applicant Atul Singh Baghel is hereby dismissed at motion stage. 11. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.