Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C.No.4089/2010
Gurpreet Singh
Vs.
The State of M.P. & another
Present:
Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
Shri Neeraj Tiwari, counsel for the applicant.
None for respondent no.1/State.
None for respondent no.2.
__________________________________________________________
ORDER
(16 /12/2015)
1. This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the accused/applicant Gurpreet Singh and is directed against order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, in Criminal Revision No. 64/2009 affirming the order dated 8.5.2009 framing the charge against the applicant/accused Gurpreet Singh under Sections 467, 468 and 420 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. in Criminal case no. 4642/2006 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni.
2. The facts giving rise to this criminal revision may briefly be summarized as hereunder: Complainant/respondent no. 2 Gurmeet Singh lodged a written report in P.S. Bandol, District Seoni on 11.2.2006 stating that at around 10:00 a.m. on 10.2.2006, he was traveling on motorcycle from his petrol pump, at village Aloniya to Seoni. Somewhere along the way, he dropped his leather bag containing many important documents including a cheque-book and a passbook of Allahabad Bank, Amarpatan, District Satna. On the same day, he issued a âstop paymentâ instruction to the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Branch Dungariya, Chapara, stating that he had lost cheque number 609636; therefore, the payment of cheque be stopped; whenever it is presented for encashment.
3. About eight months thereafter, on 12.10.2006 he received an intimation from the Branch Manager of Dungriya, Chhapara branch of the Central Bank of India that the cheque number 609636, which was reported to be lost from the possession of complainant Gurmeet Singh, was presented for encashment in Amarpatan Branch of Allahabad Bank on 9.10.2006. It was drawn in favour of the accused/applicant Gurpreet Singh dated 2.8.2006 in the sum of Rs. 5,80,000/-. The Central Bank Of India Dungeriya Branch, did not encash the cheque and returned it to the Amarpatan Branch of Allahabad Bank with a note that the drawer had stopped payment of the cheque. Thereafter, complainant/ respondent no.2 Gurmeet Singh lodged First Information Report against the applicant/accused Gurpreet Singh under Section 420, 467, 468 and 403 of the I.P.C. on 8.11.2006 alleging that applicant/ accused Gurpreet Singh had misused the blank signed cheque lost by the complainant on 10.2.2006 and had filled it in his favour and had writen a sum of Rs. 5,80,000/- thereon and submitted it for encashment in Amarpatan Branch of Allahabad Bank. Thus, with a view to cheat the complainant, he had forged a valuable security. During investigation, the disputed cheque and other disputed documents were sent along with the standard signatures and writings of the accused/applicant Gurpreet Singh to the State Examiner of Questioned Document for comparison. As per the report, the cheque and the pay-in-slip were in the hand writing of the applicant/accused Gurpreet Singh. Consequently, a charge-sheet under sections 420, 468 and 403 of the I.P.C. was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni, who framed charges under Sections 467, 468, 420 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. against the accused/applicant by order dated 8.5.2009. The order framing charge was challenged before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, who affirmed the charges by impugned order dated 29.3.2010.
4. The impugned order has been challenged in these proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mainly on the grounds that in his written report dated 11.2.2006, lodged immediately after alleged loss of cheque book, it was mentioned by the complainant/ respondent no.2 Gurmeet Singh that the cheque book which was lost, belonged to Amarpatan Branch of Allahabad Bank, whereas the cheque in respect of which the offence is said to have been committed was drawn on Dugeriya Chhapara Branch of Central Bank of India. Applicant/ accused is cousin of the complainant. It is highly unlikely that a cheque-book randomly lost on the highway, would fall in the hands of the cousin of the person who lost it. As per report of hand writing expert, the pay-in-slip and the details filled in the cheque, were in the handwriting of the applicant/accused Gurpreet Singh but it is admitted position that signatures on the cheque were subscribed by the complainant/respondent no.2. Thus, no forgery is committed. The prosecution story is inherently improbable. This case has been instituted solely with a view to avoid paying Rs. 5,80,000/- owed by the complainant to the accused and in order to pre-empt filing of a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the accused against the complainant. Thus, institution of the case is abuse of process of Court. In any case, the alleged offence is committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Amarpatan and neither the police at Police Station Bandol nor the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Seoni had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Therefore, it has been prayed that the accused/applicant be discharged.
5. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for State has supported the impugned order.
6. It has further been submitted on behalf of the applicant that in this case till date only the Bank Manager has been examined and examination in chief of Gurmeet Singh has been recorded. In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also filed the order-sheets of the trial Court. Inspite of being represented by counsel, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 Gurmeet Singh to oppose the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. On due consideration of rival contentions and examination of the copy of entire set of charge-sheet filed by the applicant as well as the case diary, this court is of the considered view that applicant/accused is entitled to succeed for the reasons hereinafter stated:
8. A perusal of written report dated 11.2.2006 filed by the complainant Gurmeet Singh in P.S. Bandol reveals that the cheque book which he allegedly lost, belonged to Amarpatan Branch of Allahabad Bank and not to Dungeriya, Chhapara Branch of Central Bank of India; whereas, the cheque in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed was drawn on Dungeriya, Chhapara Branch of Central Bank of India. Thus, at the inception, it was not the case of the complainant that he lost a cheque belonging to Central Bank of India.
9. The complainant is a businessman and runs a petrol pump. The Banks repeatedly advise their account-holders not to sign and store blank cheques, yet the complainant alleges that he had signed three of the six blank cheques and he had lost them. There is no explanation as to why he signed blank cheques without any rhyme or reason. Thus, this part of the prosecution story is inherently improbable.
10. Apart from aforesaid, it may be seen that it is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant/ accused had forged the signature of the complainant on the cheque. The only allegation is that the accused misused the cheque signed by the complainant, which had accidentally fallen into his hands, by filling in the date, the amount, and the name of the drawee in his own hand writing in order to cheat the complainant and draw the amount from the bank account of the complainant/respondent no.2. There is no requirement of law that aforesaid particulars in a cheque must be filled in by the drawer who has signed it. It is sufficient for drawer to sign the cheque. He may leave the particulars to be filled in by any other person including the drawee. As such, it cannot be said that a forgery has been committed simply because particulars in the cheque have been filled in by the drawee, whereas the cheque has been signed by the drawer.
11. In the leading case on the point, State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 S.C. 604, it has been held that though the power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and that to in rarest of rare cases, however, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to any private and personal grudge, the court may interfere in exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings.
12. In the instant case, it is apparent that a signed cheque was handed over by the complainant to his cousin the accused and thereafter, a report regarding loss of cheque and abuse of the lost cheque by the accused were lodged with an ulterior motive to pre-empt filing of a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the accused or for fabricating a defence therein. As such, the continuation of proceedings in this case before the trial Court would clearly tantamount to abuse of process of Court. As such, the proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. Consequently, the First Information Report and the proceedings arising; therefore, are liable to be quashed. 13 In the result, the First Information Report number 208/2006, dated 8.11.2006, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 403 of the I.P.C. registered by Police Station Bandol, District Seoni and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4642/2006 arising therefrom and pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni, are quashed.
13. (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE