Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumare Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 4 August, 2014
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 2057 of 2013
Vijay Kumar Jha ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jagdish Mahto ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
------
06/ 04.08.2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2011, passed by Sri Ghulam Haider, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 384 of 2011, whereby, prima facie offence has been found against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him in the said complaint case.
The Complaint Case No. 384 of 2011 was filed by the complainant O.P. No. 2, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi, in which the petitioner has been made accused with the allegation that the petitioner had introduced himself as Placement Officer-cum-Consultant of a Merchant Navy Company at Mumbai, and convinced the complainant to pay money to him on the pretext of getting the complainant employed in Merchant Navy after getting the training for the same in a Marine Institute at Mumbai. On this assurance, the complainant gave Rs. 7,20,000/- to the petitioner and he was assured of the job. When no job was given to the complainant, the complainant again met the petitioner in the month of July, 2010, when he felt that the conduct and behavior of the petitioner was doubtful, and he also came to know that the petitioner was neither the Placement Officer of any Merchant Navy Company, nor the Consultant thereof. Thereafter the petitioner demanded his money back, which was not returned back. When the petitioner was threatened the complainant of lodging the FIR, he was prevented by the petitioner to do so and two cheques of Rs. 2,70,000/- and 4,50,000/- were given to the complainant. When the cheques were produced in the Bank, they were dishonored, with the endorsement of 'insufficient fund'. Thereafter after giving legal notice to the petitioner, the complainant filed the complaint case in the Court below.
The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation, in which the complainant supported his case and on the basis of the materials available on record, the Court below has found prima facie offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as also Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
-2-Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has also submitted that the cheques were issued under undue influence and coercion, inasmuch as, the petitioner was threatened by the complainant that the FIR would be lodged against him. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that no offence can be said to be made out under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought on record the cash memo of a Marine Institute by way of Annexure-2, which shows that the payment of Rs. 1,30,400/- in the name of the complainant was made. Learned counsel has submitted that this document can be taken into consideration at this stage, which clearly shows that the petitioner had got the admission in a Marine Institute and accordingly, there was no cheating by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that it is a fit case for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner, including the impugned order finding the prima facie offence against the petitioner.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer.
Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that there is direct allegation that the petitioner misrepresented himself to be the Placement Officer-cum-Consultant of a Merchant Navy Company, which he actually was not, and on that basis, he had allegedly taken Rs. 7,20,000/- from the complainant on the false pretext of getting him employed. I am of the considered view, this allegation clearly makes out the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. It is also apparent from the complaint petition that the two cheques issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, got dishonored and after giving the legal notice, the present complaint petition has filed, which clearly makes out the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also against the petitioner. The fact whether the allegations are false, cannot be looked into at this stage, which can only be proved in the Trial. Even if the cheques were issued upon the threatening of lodging the FIR, in my considered view, it cannot be said to have been issued under undue influence or coercion, in as much as, if the allegations are true, the complainant was entitled to lodge the FIR for the same.
I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, passed by the Court below, nor any ground to interfere with the criminal proceeding against the petitioner at this stage. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) Amitesh/-