Jharkhand High Court
Uttam Kumar Manjhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 23 August, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2013 (1) AJR 418
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Cr.M.P.No.385 of 2012
Uttam Kumar Manjhi ..............................Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand and another...Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner: Mr.N.K.Pasari
For the State :A.P.P
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr.M.B.Lal
10/ 23.8.12. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 1.8.2011 passed in complaint case no.2089 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of.
It is the case of the complaint that the complainant and the witness no.1 after having map sanctioned by MADA, Dhanbad of the new building of the school for its extension applied before the Central Bank for grant of loan of Rs.10 lac but the authority refused to sanction the loan. However, the petitioner approached the complainant and promised him to get the loan sanctioned through the Bank Manager, accused no.2. Thereupon the petitioner brought the complainant before the Bank Manager to whom it was stated by the petitioner that the complainant is in need of money for construction of a new building of the school. The Bank Manager asked the complainant to produce sale deed, rent receipt, map, LIC bond etc. Accordingly, the complainant and the witness no.1 came along with this petitioner to the Bank with the aforesaid documents and met the Manager (Mr.Yadav), who advised them to bring certain more documents. Thereupon this petitioner and the Bank Manager (Ananda Pasari) took all those papers by giving assurance that they will manage to get the loan sanctioned by the Bank.
Further case is that on 6.11.2010, this petitioner came to the house of the complainant and told him that the Manager has agreed to sanction loan on execution of the deed of agreement and on furnishing of money receipt as well as one blank post dated cheque. Accordingly, the complainant along with P.W.1 and also this petitioner came before the accused no.2, Anand Pasari where he got the signature of the complainant and P.W.1 on blank non-judicial stamp and also on plain blank papers on the pretext that the same would be converted as agreement, promissory note/ hand note and money receipt in proof of taking loan. They also demanded blank cheque with signature of the complainant and P.W.1 over it. The same were also given to them and then the accused persons asked the complainant and the witness to come after 4-5 days so that in the meantime, they will get the loan sanctioned. After 4-5 days when the complainant asked from the accused no.2, Anand Pasari, it was told to the complainant that the Bank Manager has refused to sanction loan as the complainant does not have sufficient money in his account. Thereupon, documents which had been taken by the accused persons were demanded but they did not return on the plea that it would be returned to them later on. Meanwhile, on 24.11.2010 the complainant received a legal notice dated 22.11.2010 sent on behalf of the petitioner from which it got transpired that the petitioner has been contemplating to lodge a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and then the complainant having realized that the petitioner got those papers, non-judicial stamp, blank papers and the blank cheques utilized lodged the case whereby it was alleged that the petitioner has committed offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
On such complaint, cognizance of the offences was taken by the court, vide its order dated 1.8.2011 which is under challenge.
Mr.Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has come with all false allegation in order to create defence to be led in the complaint case lodged by the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Under the circumstances, it can certainly be said that the entire prosecution has been launched by the complainant with ulterior purpose.
In this regard, it was further submitted that the complainant had taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioner by entering into a memorandum of understanding dated 25.10.2010 and as a security for the said loan, the complainant had mortgaged the documents relating to land belonging to the complainant and also issued a post dated cheque in favour of the petitioner. When on due date the said cheque was deposited, it got dishonoured and hence, a legal notice dated 22.11.2010 was sent to the complainant calling upon him to make payment of the amount for which cheque had been issued. Upon receiving the said notice, the complainant approached the petitioner and entered into an agreement on 6.12.2010 that the entire loan amount shall be repaid to the petitioner on or before 30.12.2010 and thereupon, all the original documents were returned. But before entering into the aforesaid agreement, the complainant had already filed a complaint case on 27.11.2010 whereas when the payment was not made, no option was left with the petitioner but to file a case against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act which was filed on 1.3.2011.
Under the circumstances, it was submitted that it is a clear cut case of malicious prosecution and moreover, even if entire allegations made in the complaint are taken to be true, no case either of forgery or cheating is made out.
As against this, Mr.Lal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the allegation made in the complaint would itself disclose as to how the petitioner cheated the complainant cunningly and that there have been all the elements in the complaint to establish prima facie case of cheating and forgery and that the petitioner has admittedly lodged compliant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act after the petitioner lodged the case and hence, the complainant can never be said to have lodged the case to create defence in his favour. In such situation, order taking cognizance never warrants to be interfered with.
Thus, from the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it does appear that on one hand, it is being argued that the complaint had been lodged by the complainant with all false allegation whereas it is the stand of the complainant- opposite party no.2 that the manner in which he was cheated has been disclosed in the complaint and that there has been no element of any falsehood. At this stage, the court is never supposed to go into the veracity of the allegation and as such, it cannot be decided at this stage, as to whether the complaint lodged by the complainant was false or true but the fact is that the petitioner did lodge complaint for commission of the offence of cheating and forgery after receiving legal notice whereupon complainant had been called upon to make payment of the amount of the cheque which got dishonoured and not only that on receiving such notice even the complainant, according to the petitioner, had entered into an agreement whereby the complainant had agreed to repay the entire loan amount by 30.12.2011 but before that a case had been lodged by the complainant. Moreover, keeping in view the improbability of the allegation of asking for a blank cheque for sanctioning loan which normally does not happen as it is only the documents are being asked as a co-lateral security, the case seems to have been lodged maliciously by the complainant.
At this stage, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] wherein it has been held that where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, a complaint or first information report is liable to be quashed.
Applying the said principle, in the facts and circumstances stated above, it is manifest that whatever allegations are there in the complaint, they are attended with mala fide so as to have have defence to be put in the complaint case lodged by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.2089 of 2010 including the order dated 1.8.2011 is hereby quashed so far the petitioner is concerned.
In the result, this application is allowed.
( R.R. Prasad, J.) ND/