Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1042 (MP)

Munni Devi Jain v. Abhishek Jain

2016-11-17

N.K.GUPTA

body2016
1. The applicant has moved the present petition under section 482 of CrPC to quash the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No.510/2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashok Nagar (M.P.) which is registered for offence under section 379 of IPC. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 17.3.2009 a complaint was filed by the respondent against the applicant that she had stolen a blank cheque signed by the respondent and signatures were appended. Thereafter, the applicant moved a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque given by the respondent was dishonoured and notice was given on 16.8.2008. Then the complaint was filed by the respondent that there was no transaction between the parties relating to the cheque and therefore it was stolen. 3. Initially, the concerned Magistrate registered the criminal complaint for offence under section 379 of IPC vide order dated 1.4.2010, however, in revision the revisionary Court vide order dated 24.5.2010 remanded the matter for consideration of various other offences. Again, the trial Court heard the arguments, registered the complaint case for offence under section 379 of IPC and consequently order dated 29.3.2011 was passed and the complaint was registered. 4. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that the alleged cheque was issued on 31.3.2008 and the applicant is the sister of the respondent who claimed that she had given a loan amount to the respondent so that he could advance his business. After perusal of various documents filed by the respondent before the trial Court it appears that vide letter dated 23.10.2007 it was intimated to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank that the aforesaid cheque was stolen. Again, an intimation was given to the Station House Officer Kotwali Vidisha on 23.10.2007. If cheque was submitted for encashment after 31.8.2008 then it was not possible that it would have been stolen in the month of October, 2007 itself. The respondent again gave a fresh intimation to the concerned bank on 20.8.2008 when a notice of demand was received. By various dates of letters written by respondent it was not possible for the applicant to keep the cheque for approximately five months after getting its delivery. It was not possible for the respondent to get a blank cheque in his pocket after appending his signatures. By various dates of letters written by respondent it was not possible for the applicant to keep the cheque for approximately five months after getting its delivery. It was not possible for the respondent to get a blank cheque in his pocket after appending his signatures. Looking to the date and time period of five months it was for the respondent to show his entire bank account before the trial Court that the cheques issued after Serial No.86463 duly encashed in the year 2007 and the cheque was stolen in October, 2007. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the respondent gave such a cheque to the applicant for which he had already lodged the report to the police and the bank authority. In the absence of copy of the bank account of the respondent his claim cannot be accepted that cheque was stolen and it was stolen by the applicant. According to the documents, the respondent had received a notice of demand given by the applicant which was served in the month of August, 2008 and if cheque was stolen then the respondent would have immediately lodged a complaint against the applicant whereas complaint was filed on 17.3.2008 i.e. after seven months of getting the notice of demand. Thereafter, if some documents were prepared by the respondent then such documents can be prepared to defeat the complaint filed by the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. Under these circumstances, there was no sufficient evidence available on record to show that the applicant had filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a cheque which was stolen by her. A doubt is created that the respondent gave that cheque to the applicant and thereafter to defeat its encashment he created some documents. The trial Court has committed an error in registering the complaint under section 204 of CrPC for the offence under section 379 of IPC. 6. Under these circumstances, it is a good case in which inherent powers of this Court may be invoked in favour of the applicant. 7. Consequently, the petition under section 482 CrPC filed by the applicant, namely, Smt. Munni Devi Jain is hereby allowed. Proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.510/2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashok Nagar are hereby quashed. Trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings. 8. 7. Consequently, the petition under section 482 CrPC filed by the applicant, namely, Smt. Munni Devi Jain is hereby allowed. Proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.510/2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashok Nagar are hereby quashed. Trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings. 8. A copy of the order passed today be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance. Jitendra Singh Kushwah for applicant; Bhagwan Raj Pandey represented respondent.