Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prabha Ram vs Vachan Singh on 11 January, 2012
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.2705/2011
Parbha Ram. VS. Vachan Singh.
DATE OF ORDER : 11.1.2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr.Rajesh Shah, for the petitioner.
...
The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the charge allegedly framed against him in Case No.370/2009 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following grievances :-
(i)that the charge was read over to the advocate,
(ii)that details of the allegation were not set out in charge, and
(iii)that the cheque was bounced in this case because the account was closed whereas the affidavit of the complainant was to the effect that the cheque was bounced due to insufficient funds.
He thus, submits that the charge against the petitioner should be quashed.
I have carefully gone through the arguments advanced at bar and have perused the order impugned and the proceedings of the court below.
2
In the opinion of this Court, the present petition is thoroughly conceived. Firstly, the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be tried in a summary way. Whenever the accused is being tried for summons case, the trial of the case is to be undertaken in a summary manner as prescribed in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. Section 251 Cr.P.C. reads as below :-
"251. Substance of accusation to be stated. When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge."
Thus, only when the substance of accusation is to be stated, then there is no requirement for the Court to set out in detail the allegations of charge to the accused.
In the present case, the accusation has been read out to the advocate appearing for the petitioner which also is permissible as per a number of decisions of this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. The accused has not raised any grievance against his advocate for having heard the accusations without his instructions or having wrongly heard the accusation and if he has any grievance, then he has remedy of approaching the Bar Council against 3 the action of his lawyer.
The second argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the cheque was bounced because the account was closed whereas the complainant in his affidavit has stated that the cheque was bounced because the funds were insufficient.
In the opinion of this Court, the proceedings against an accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is very much permissible, even if the cheque has been bounced for the reason that the account was closed. That apart, the complainant has not been confronted with this aspect when he was examined.
Thus, there is no force in the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner.
Resultantly, the present misc. petition, being bereft of any force, is hereby dismissed.
The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present order.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
S.Phophaliya