Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar vs Sajjan Kumar on 18 July, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:089910
CRM-M-4939-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4939-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.07.2024
SATISH KUMAR
... Petitioner
Versus
SAJJAN KUMAR
...Respondent
CRM-M-5631-2017 (O&M)
MANOJ KUMAR DIWAN
... Petitioner
Versus
SAJJAN KUMAR
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing No.CRM-M- 4939-2017 titled as Satish Kumar Versus Sajjan Kumar and CRM-M-5631- 2017 titled as Manoj Kumar Diwan Versus Sajjan Kumar as the same are arising out of the same complaint. However, for the sake of convenience the facts have been taken from CRM-M-4939-2017.
2. The prayer in the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.RBT 324 dated 03.10.2013 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC (Annexure P-
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 07:26:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:089910
CRM-M-4939-2017 (O&M) -2-
1), the summoning order dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Jind whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be summoned under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant- Sajjan Kumar (hereinafter known as the respondent) along with Smt. Sunita Sharma, started a marketing company in the name of RBC Marketing Co. Ltd. under the Companies Act after taking permission at HUDA SCF No.69- 70, HUDA Ground Complex, Jind in the year 2006. After starting the work, accused No.2-Satish Kumar (petitioner in CRM-M-4939-2017) who was earlier known to the respondent also showed his willingness to work with the respondent and so he was also inducted in the company. The job of petitioner-Satish Kumar was to purchase goods for the company from Delhi and for that purpose bank letter pads of the company along with blank cheques duly signed by the respondent with the seal of the company used to be handed over to him so that he may place the order on those letter pads and may fill the cheque against the cost of those goods. The petitioner-Satish Kumar won over the trust of the respondent and he was included as a partner- cum-Director in the company. The petitioner-Satish Kumar received two cheques bearing Nos.116401 and 116402 with a blank letter pad of RBC Marketing Pvt. Co. Ltd. duly signed by the respondent for purchase of the goods for the company. Satish Kumar on 26.05.2007 after receiving Cheque Nos.116401 and 116402 along with the blank letter pad duly signed by the 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 07:26:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:089910 CRM-M-4939-2017 (O&M) -3- respondent with the seal of the company went to True Lines Appliances, Delhi to purchase goods for the company. On 29.04.2007 he informed that Cheque No.116401 had got spoiled and had been cancelled and so he had used Cheque No.116402 to make the payment of Rs.2,70,000/- and had also placed the order on the letter pad duly signed by the respondent. Petitioner- Satish Kumar in front of the respondent on the last leaf of the cheque book having cheques No.116401 and 116402, entered the cheque No.116401 as CANCELLED. On the asking of the respondent, the petitioner-Satish Kumar informed that Cheque No.116401 had got spoiled and he had destroyed the same and that he had made the payment to the True Lines Appliances, Delhi by issuing Cheque No.116402. Later, Satish Kumar started working against the interests of the company and ultimately on 29.11.2008 he was ousted from the company.
On 14.12.2009 the respondent came to know that the Cheque No.116401 which Satish Kumar had stated to be spoiled and was cancelled, in fact it was neither cancelled nor destroyed. It was misused as the respondent got a notice from the Court at Bhiwani that Manoj Kumar (petitioner in CRM-M-5631-2017) had filed a complaint for dishonour of the Cheque No.116401 dated 18.08.2009 for a sum of Rs.11,04,207/- and it was also found that letter pads which were handed over to petitioner-Satish Kumar to place the order had been used for creating false and fabricated documents i.e. forwarding letter for Cheque No.116401. This cheque was filled in favour of petitioner-Manoj Kumar with date and amount by 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 07:26:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:089910 CRM-M-4939-2017 (O&M) -4- misusing the blank signed cheque. Petitioner-Manoj Kumar had nothing to receive from the company as no amount was outstanding and further the respondent had never sent this cheque for any amount to Manoj Kumar. Manoj Kumar and Satish Kumar after hatching a criminal conspiracy had forged and fabricated the cheque in favour of Manoj Kumar for Rs.11,04,207/-. The writing on this cheque would show that this cheque had not been sent by the respondent or by the company to Manoj Kumar. In fact, the writing on this cheque was of Manoj Kumar who was earlier working with RBC Marketing Private Co. Ltd. but due to his activities against the company his right to do the work of commission agent of the company had been cancelled.
An FIR No.35 dated 14.01.2010 had been registered under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC Police Station City Jind at the instance of the respondent against the petitioners but the same had been cancelled due to the clout of the petitioners leading to the filing of the present complaint.
The copy of the complaint dated 03.10.2013 is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.
4. Based on the preliminary evidence led, the petitioners came to be summoned to face Trial vide order dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Jind under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
5. The present petitions have been filed challenging the aforementioned complaint and summoning order.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 07:26:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:089910
CRM-M-4939-2017 (O&M) -5-
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that an FIR No.35 dated 14.01.2010 had been registered on the same cause of action in which investigations had been conducted twice and a cancellation report had been filed. The said reports had not been appreciated by the summoning Court prior to the summoning of the petitioners. During the course of investigation it had been found that True Line Appliances Pvt. Ltd. had received payment vide a Demand Draft and not through Cheque No.116402 as per the averments in the complaint. This fact completely falsified the case of the respondent. There was violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 202 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as petitioner-Manoj Kumar was a resident of Bhiwani which was outside the jurisdiction of the Courts at Jind and therefore, an inquiry ought to have been conducted prior to the summoning of the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abhijit Pawar Versus Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar & another, 2017(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 405, Deepak Gaba & others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & another, 2023(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 659 and Odi Jerang Versus Nabajyoti Baruah & others, 2023(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 64. He, therefore contends that the complaint, the order of summoning and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were required to be quashed in the interest of justice.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, on the other hand, contends that the preliminary evidence led prima facie established the commission of the offences in question. In fact, the FIR had 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 07:26:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:089910 CRM-M-4939-2017 (O&M) -6- been cancelled on account of pressure being exerted by the petitioners who were extremely well-connected. Therefore, the present petitions were liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Before proceedings further it would be apposite to refer to Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"202. Postponement of issue of process.-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding;
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made--
(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or
(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under Sub-Section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 07:26:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:089910 CRM-M-4939-2017 (O&M) -7-
Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.
(3) If an investigation under Sub-Section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant."
10. A perusal of the aforementioned provision would show that where an accused is residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, then an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory in the absence of which the summoning order is liable to be quashed. It has been stated so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhijit Pawar (supra), Deepak Gaba (supra) and Odi Jerang (supra).
11. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, a bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that while the same was filed in the Court of CJM, Jind, the petitioner-Manoj Kumar was admittedly a resident of Bhiwani. Therefore, an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. ought to have been held prior to the summoning of the petitioners.
12. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find considerable merit in the present petition. Therefore, the Criminal Complaint No.RBT 324 dated 03.10.2013 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC (Annexure P-1), the summoning order dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Jind and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 07:26:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:089910
CRM-M-4939-2017 (O&M) -8-
13. However, the concerned at JMIC, Jind is at liberty to proceed afresh with the complaint after complying with the procedure enumerated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhijit Pawar (supra), Deepak Gaba (supra) and Odi Jerang (supra).
14. Pending miscellaneous applications(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
18.07.2024
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 07:26:50 :::