Dismissed

Nagendra Kumar Sharma Alias Narendra Kumar Alias Banti Sharma and Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Mar 2015Cr.M.P./2300/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings for cheque dishonour, cheating, and forgery. The High Court held that conflicting versions existed regarding the misuse of blank security cheques and that Section 482 CrPC did not permit evidence sifting.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing of criminal proceedings was dismissed as having no merit.

Nagendra Kumar Sharma Alias Narendra Kumar Alias Banti… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2300 of 2013

¶2

1.Nagendra Kumar Sharma @ Narendra Kumar @ Banti Sharma son of Govind Ram Sharma R/o Purana Bazar Manitand Pani Tanki,

¶3

PO, PS & District Dhanbad

¶4

2.Vikash Kumar Joshi son of Bijay Kumar Joshi R/o Rajgarhia Road, Near Shyam Bhawan,

¶5

PO & PS Telaiya, District Koderma

¶6

3.Abhishek Joshi son of Late Hukumchand Joshi R/o 1^st floor, Jago Niwas Market, Hotel Srivinayak, PTC Road, PO & PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh

¶7

… … Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. T. N. Verma, A.P.P. For the Complainant/Informant: Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate

¶12

6/10.03.2015 Heard Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the informant.

¶13

In this application, petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Chirkunda (Maithan) P. S. Case No. 17 of 2013 corresponding to G. R. No. 281 of 2013 including the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469, 474 & 120/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution story in brief which arises initially out of a complaint case is that, the complainant and his family members carried on business with the accused no. 1 and 2 in the name and style of “Shivam Soft Coal Industries”, M/s. Bhabhia Coal Company and Bundel Coal Company. It has been stated that the complainant has given security cheques bearing nos. 749070 and 749067 along with some other cheques out of which one was cheque no. 749068 & the other was 749069, both of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shastri Nagar Branch, Dhanbad on demand of accused persons against future risk.

¶14

-2-

¶15

It has been stated that the amount and columns of the cheques were not filled up by the complainant. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that the accused no. 1 surreptiously presented the cheques bearing nos. 749068 and 749069 in connivance with the accused nos. 3, 4 & 5 in the bank account of accused nos. 4 & 5 for encashment, whereas the complainant has no outstanding dues payable to them. The complaint petition, thereafter, reveals that the complainant was surprised to receive the notices threatening him of prosecution for dishonour of the said cheques. It has also been alleged that the accused nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with the accused nos. 3, 4, & 5 with an intention to cheat the complainant forged the cheques and on dishonour, notices were issued to the complainant.

¶16

After the complaint case was instituted, the same was sent to the police for registering an FIR pursuant to which Chirkunda (Maithan) P. S. Case No. 17 of 2013 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469, 470 & 120B/34 of the IPC . 5. Investigation culminated in filing of charge-sheet against accused nos. 3, 4 & 5 (petitioners herein) whereas so far as accused nos. 1 & 2 are concerned, there was no evidence of their involvement. On 01.07.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad was pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469, 474 & 120/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are being maliciously prosecuted as a counter blast to the earlier cases instituted by the accused persons against the complainant with respect to dishonour of cheques as well as for cheating and the said cases are still pending. It has been submitted that only with a view to create a defence and to save himself from the cases instituted earlier by the petitioners, the complaint case was instituted on 17.12.2012. It has further been submitted that earlier also the complainant had filed a complaint case being C. P. Case No. 2603 of 2012 which was subsequently sent to the police for registering an FIR and pursuant thereto investigation into the case is in progress. He therefore submits that apparently it is a case of malicious prosecution only with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner.

¶17

The learned senior counsel for the complainant/Informant on the other hand, has submitted that the entire disputes revolves around the

¶18

-3-

¶19

dishonour of cheques for which the petitioners have instituted separate complaint cases and some cases have been instituted prior to the institution of Chirkunda (Maithan) P. S. Case No. 17 of 2013 and since in course of investigation, the allegations against the petitioners having been found to be true, charge-sheet was also duly submitted by the police. It has also been submitted that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners of surreptiously with an intention to cheat by depositing the cheques bearing nos. 749068 and 749069 in the account of accused nos. 4 & 5 (petitioner nos. 2 and 3) and in view of such allegations, the present case is liable to be dismissed. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that on 21.11.2012, C. P. Case No. 2585 of 2012 was lodged by the accused no. 1 against the complainant of the present case for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 of the I.P.C. On 21.11.2012 itself, C. P. Case No. 2583 of 2012 was instituted by accused no. 2 against the complainant of the present case for the offences punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 of the I.P.C. Similarly on 11.01.2013, accused no. 5 (petitioner no. 3) had filed another case being C. P. Case No. 80 of 2013 against the complainant of the present case for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. Just prior to the aforesaid cases on 04.01.2013, criminal prosecution was launched against the complainant of the present case by the accused no. 4 (petitioner no. 2 herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In between the lodging of C. P. Case No. 2585, C. P. Case No. 2583 and C. P. Case No. 12 of 2013, a complaint case was instituted on 17.12.2012 by the complainant. In the complaint petition, it has also been stated by the complainant that for misuse of cheques bearing nos. 749070 and 749067, C. P. Case No. 2603 of 2012 was instituted by the complainant against the accused persons including the petitioners. Case and counter case by both the parties basically relates to issuance of cheques and their subsequent dishonour/misuse. The accused persons/petitioners claimed that the cheques which were given by the complainant were dishonoured resulting in filing of separate complaint

¶20

-4-

¶21

cases for separate cause of action. The complainant claims in both the complaint petitions i.e., C. P. Case No. 2603 of 2012 and Chirkunda (Maithan) P. S. Case No. 17 of 2013 that, the cheques which were given as security were misused by the accused persons/petitioners and who had without authorisation deposited the said cheques with the bank when the cheques itself did not contain the amount and the columns of the cheques were also not filled up by the complainant.

¶22

In such circumstances, at this stages it is difficult to fathom as to whose version is correct and legally acceptable. If the complaint petition/written report which is the subject-matter of the present application is considered in isolation, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that there are allegations against the petitioners of misusing the cheques and depositing the same for encashment in the account of accused nos. 4 & 5 (petitioner nos. 2 & 3) and upon investigation having found the allegations to be true, charge-sheet was also duly submitted by the police. When the allegations levelled in the complaint petition/written report is taken into consideration in the prevailing circumstances which have much been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, then also it cannot be concluded for certain that the case instituted against the petitioners is a malicious prosecution, as separate versions with respect to the same cheques have been brought forward. The veracity and truthfulness or otherwise of either of the versions can only be decided by the trial court and this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not empowered to sift the evidences or conduct a meticulous inquiry to arrive at a finding.

¶23

In such circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out a full proof case so as to compel the Court to invoke its inherent powers conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. In view of what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to interfere with the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶24

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶25

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Nagendra Kumar Sharma Alias Narendra Kumar Alias Banti Sharma and Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Kumar Sharma Alias Narendra Kumar Alias Banti Sharma and Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Amit Saha And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Hari Shanker Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ms Tata Motors Ltd. Telco through Its Assistant General Manager Legal Namely Mr R K Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Manju Singh Vs Human Resources Department

Sadanand Singh and Ors. Vs Human Resources Department

Satish Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.