Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The Complainant alleged that these were the blank signed Cheques which had been stolen by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, on 18.12.2003, who had accompanied him in his car to Shalimar Bagh Market. He had not suspected Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, who is his son-in-law, of this alleged theft on the date when he found his bag and valuable documents missing. He came to know that missing cheques had in fact, been stolen by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, when he got the intimidation of cheques being presented by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / Harish Bindal and Tarun Bindal for encasement. He then came to know about the cheating and forgery and filed a Complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned MM.

Shalimar Bagh.

42. He also took out an Advertisement in two daily newspapers, namely Jansatta and Indian Express on 26.12.2003, in regard to his missing documents.

43. The Respondents have asserted that interestingly, similar Advertisements had been made in the name of the son of P. C. Minda as well for the same date and the same documents. Two persons, i.e. father and son, could not have lost the same documents on the same day in the same manner. The way Public Notices have been published, clearly indicate the falsity of the claim of the complainant.

46. Pertinently, the backdrop, in which the Complaint has been made, needs to be considered. The Complainant at the time when he found his documents missing on 18.12.2003, naturally presumed them to have been misplaced in regard to which he took due precaution by getting a NCR recorded and by taking out an Advertisement in two daily Newspapers, in 2003 itself.

49. To say that his allegations are malafide or an afterthought, may not be correct in the light of the facts as stated in the Complaint. It cannot be overlooked that the NCR and Advertisement to Report the Loss of documents was done in December, 2003 and complaint was filed on 21.03.2005.While the Cheques have emerged after almost more than one year in February, March, 2005. It cannot be over looked that the conduct of the Complainant was natural in the circumstances to report the missing documents. It would be absurd to even consider that he would have schemed and planned his defence in regard to these cheques, more than one year in advance. If so was the intent, nothing prevented the Complainant to lodge the report of theft rather than of misplacing the documents. The Relationship between the parties cannot be over looked for the Complainant to have thought it to be a case of theft at that time.