Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1185 (MP)

Satyanarayan S/o Modiramji Porwal v. Rameshwar

2016-12-22

ALOK VERMA

body2016
ORDER : Alok Verma, J. 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashment of proceedings pending against the present applicant in Criminal Case No. 929/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaora and discharging the present applicant from Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. 2. There are very peculiar facts in background of this case. The complainant filed a criminal complaint of this case against the present applicant and three others before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate in which it was alleged that a bag containing a cheque-book in which some blank cheques were signed by him, the original papers of tractor and some other documents were kept left at the shop of the present applicant. Subsequently, he went to get his bag back, but the present applicant avoided to return the bag to him, and later on, using the blank cheques signed by him, through three other accused persons Govindlal, Rajkumar and Yashwant Singh, they filed a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging therein that cheques for Rs. 2,00,000/- were given to these three persons. While the complaint was pending, the present applicant entered into an agreement and received Rs. 70,000/- from the complainant agreeing that he would settle the matter by compromise with other three accused persons, and therefore, with a view to avoiding further complications and proceedings in that complaint case, the complainant paid him Rs. 70,000/- however, the matter was not resolved as promised by the applicant, and therefore, the complaint was filed. The concerning Magistrate by order dated 11.03.2010 passed a detailed order, in which it was observed that there was discrepancy between his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also statements of other witnesses and also it was nowhere mentioned that on which date, the bag was left at the shop of the present applicant and ultimately it was observed by the learned Magistrate that the complaint was only filed to adversely influence the complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and he proceeded to dismiss the private complaint. Against this order the criminal revision was filed. The same was disposed of on 21.02.2016 by the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 139/2010. Against this order the criminal revision was filed. The same was disposed of on 21.02.2016 by the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 139/2010. The criminal court opined that at this stage only a prima-facie case was to be seen and without averting on merit of the case and taking into consideration the material available on record, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and matter was again remanded back with a direction to rehear the complainant after taking into consideration the material available on record passed an appropriate order. When this matter reached back to the Court of Magistrate a very short and cryptic order was passed and cognizance was taken under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC only against the present applicant, no cognizance was taking against other three persons. Against this order, again a criminal revision was filed which was dismissed by the learned revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 123/2015 dated 15.03.2016. After ex-hosting all his remedies before the lower court, this application is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the learned Magistrate and prays that the order may be confirmed. 4. After going through the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 11.03.2010 and orders passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 139/2010 and 123/2015, I find that the complaint was filed premature, the averments and facts stated in the complaint was in fact formed the defence of the complainant in the complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. In case his defence would be accepted by the competent court and all the facts stated in the complaint would be established before the competent court then it would be said that there was some forgery and deceit committed by the present applicant on the complainant. At this stage, from the averments made in the complaint and also the observation made by the learned Magistrate, there appears to be no ground for proceedings under Sections 120, 167 and 168 of IPC against the present applicant. Such proceedings are clearly abuse of process of Court and accordingly, this application deserves to be allowed and allowed accordingly. 5. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 929/2015 are quashed. The applicant is discharged from offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.