Quashed

Usha Narsaria And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2012Cr.M.P./1172/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of an order taking cognizance of an offence for theft and forgery. The High Court held the complaint was filed with ulterior purpose to create a defence against a cheque bounce case lodged by the petitioners and allowed the application, quashing the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 23.3.2011 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 379 IPC is hereby quashed.

Usha Narsaria And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2012)

¶1

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

¶2

Cr.M.P.No.1172 of 2011

¶3

1.Usha Narsaria

¶4

Om Prakash Narsaria…………………….Petitioners

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

State of Jharkhand and another……Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr.Nilesh Kumar For the State :A.P.P For the Complainant: Mr.C.Mukherjee

¶9

5/ 4.9.12.

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

¶11

learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶12

This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.3.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.663 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the then Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

¶13

Mr.Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the instant case has been lodged by the complainant with ulterior purpose so as to create a defence in a case which has been lodged by the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act

¶14

In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that in discharge of debt, six cheques had been given by the complainant to the petitioners which were deposited in the Bank on 3.3.2008 and 26.2.2008. When all those six cheques got dishonoured, the petitioners sent legal notice to the complainant on 7.3.2008 which were received by the complainant on 10.3.2008 and 11.3.2008. In spite of receiving notice, when payment was not made, a Complaint Case Nos.750 of 2008 and 751 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners against the complainant. After having received the notice when the complainant became apprehensive that a case would be filed by the petitioners against him, he filed a Complaint

¶15

Case No.663 of 2008 on 19.8.2008 putting allegation that the complainant and the petitioners were in friendly terms and as such, the petitioners did visit the house of the complainant on 9.1.2008. In the room where the petitioners sat certain documents including cheque book were lying on the table. After taking refreshment, they went away. Subsequently, after three days, she came to know on 12.1.2008 that six leaves of the booklet are missing. Those cheques have been utilized by the petitioners in lodging the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The said allegation has been levelled for the ulterior purpose so as to create defence and therefore, the instant case can certainly be said to be a case of malicious prosecution.

¶16

As against this, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that cheques which had been stolen by the petitioners had never been signed by the complainant and therefore, before the court below prayer is being made to send the cheques before the hand writing expert for getting the verification of the signature be made from the admitted signature of the complainant and under this situation, the case never warrants to be quashed.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that admittedly notice was sent to the petitioners when six cheques got dishonoured but when payments were not made, the complaint was lodged by the petitioners, vide Complaint Case Nos.750 of 2008 and 751 of 2008. Before lodgment of this case when the complainant had received notice sent by the petitioners intimating therein that the cheques were dishonoured, the complainant lodged the case wherein plea has been taken that cheques have been stolen by the petitioners and were utilized by putting forged signature.

¶18

Under the circumstances, the compliant case seems to have

¶19

been lodged with ulterior purpose in order to create defence.

¶20

Accordingly, the order dated 23.3.2011 taking cognizance is

¶21

hereby quashed.

¶22

In the result, this application stands allowed.

¶23

(R.R.Prasad, J.)

¶24

ND/

Usha Narsaria And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Narsaria And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kishore Sahay And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Subodh Prasad Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Agarwal Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gobind Prasad Agrawal Govind Prasad Bohra Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lal Babu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pravesh Kumar Alias Pravesh Kumar Lakhamani Vs The State Of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Pankaj Kishore Sahay And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Subodh Prasad Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Agarwal  Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gobind Prasad Agrawal  Govind Prasad Bohra Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lal Babu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pravesh Kumar Alias Pravesh Kumar Lakhamani Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Agarwal Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gobind Prasad Agrawal Govind Prasad Bohra Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.