Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1665 (JHR)

Anju Das v. State of Jharkhand

2025-08-11

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.3810 of 2017 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur including the order dated 25.01.2018 passed in the said case whereby and where under the prima facie case under Section 138 N.I. Act was found by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate directed to issue summons to the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner took loan of Rs.12.50 lakhs from the Punjab National Bank and issued one account payee cheque dated 24.12.2017 for the amount of Rs.17,98,677/-. As per the advice of the petitioner the bank represented the said cheque for payment on 24.10.2017 but the same was dishonoured because of insufficient fund in the bank account of the petitioner. Despite the demand notice, the petitioner did not pay the amount as mentioned in the cheque, hence, the said complaint case was instituted by the bank and after going through all the materials available on record, learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner and directed for issuance of summons to him. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Though petitioner admits that he had taken a loan from the Punjab National Bank for purchasing a duplex house but the builder failed to handover the house to the petitioner. Petitioner admits that she submitted the cheque in the bank, at the time of taking loan, which has subsequently been dishonoured but the petitioner did not fill up the date in the said cheque. The cheque was given as a collateral security. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P. be allowed. 4. Learned Addl. Petitioner admits that she submitted the cheque in the bank, at the time of taking loan, which has subsequently been dishonoured but the petitioner did not fill up the date in the said cheque. The cheque was given as a collateral security. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P. be allowed. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer and submit that it is only the defence of the petitioner that the complainant filled up the date in the cheque as per its sweet will, without the consent of the petitioner and the veracity of the same can be tested during the full dressed of trial of the case. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that if the entire allegations made in the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses made on affidavit is considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act is made out. Hence, it is submitted that the instant Cr.M.P being without any merit be dismissed. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . the High Court cannot conduct a mini trial to test the veracity of the defence of the accused person of the case before the prosecution adduces its evidence as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029 at page-11 which reads as under:- “11. The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist’s receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist’s receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06:30 a.m.; the chemist’s bill and CCTV images are from 12:09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08:30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Now coming to the facts of the case the only contention of the petitioner is that the date over the cheque was filled up by the complainant without her consent. This, in the considered opinion of this court, is not a justifiable ground to quash the entire proceeding at this nascent stage, hence this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P. is to be acceded in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C . 7. Hence, the instant Cr.M.P. is dismissed being without any merit.