Dismissed

Raj Kumar v. Prem Tyagi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2013CRM-M/25723/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that dismissed a complaint alleging unauthorized withdrawal of funds from a bank account using forged documents. The court upheld the concurrent findings of no force in the petitioner's allegations.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Complaint order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate affirmed.

Raj Kumar Vs Prem Tyagi and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-25723 of 2009(O&M)

¶2

..1..

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-25723 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 08 March, 2013

Raj Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

Prem Tyagi & Anr.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Robin Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶16

Challenge in the present petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to the order dated 04.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, (Annexure P-2), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant impugning the order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, (Annexure P-1), dismissing his complaint, was dismissed.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that the petitionercomplainant had filed a complaint before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506, IPC with the brief allegations that the petitioner-complainant had a saving bank account bearing

¶18

..2..

¶19

Criminal Misc. No.M-25723 of 2009(O&M)

¶20

No.48 in The Yamuna Nagar Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Nagal, District Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner-complainant had never received a cheque book from the above-said bank. On 31.01.2003, the balance in his account was 30,52,123.20p. On 07.02.2003, respondent No.1-accused Prem Tyagi in connivance with respondent No.2, the Managing Director, withdrew 30,00,000/from his (petitioner) account without any authority. The petitionercomplainant had never issued cheque or withdrawal form for withdrawal of the said amount from his saving account. When the petitioner-complainant came to know about the withdrawal of the amount from his account, he protested the matter before Prem Tyagi, the Manager of the bank. The petitioner-complainant received his pass-book with a great difficulty showing the statement of account. The respondent-accused threatened the petitioner-complainant in case he continued to raise the issue.

¶21

In preliminary evidence, the petitioner-complainant examined himself as CW-1 and tendered in evidence the copy of the statement of his saving account (Ex.C-1) and the application (Ex.C-2) which was presented to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Yamuna Nagar.

¶22

During the pendency of the complaint, the learned Area Judicial Magistrate called for the report from the police by invoking the provisions of Section 202, Cr.P.C. After scanning the material, the learned Area Judicial Magistrate found that no prima-facie case for summoning of the accused was made out, therefore, he dismissed the complaint.

¶23

Criminal Misc. No.M-25723 of 2009(O&M)

¶24

..3..

¶25

Dissatisfied with the above-said order, the petitionercomplainant filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, but the same was also dismissed and hence, the judgments of both the courts below are under challenge before this Court.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶27

The allegation of the petitioner-complainant are that respondent Nos.1 and 2(accused) committed cheating and forgery in connivance with each other by transferring 30,00,000/- from his (petitioner) saving bank account No.48 to the saving bank account No.372 of Raj Kumar, son of Rulia Ram, without his authority and consent as he had not filled up any withdrawal form or issued the cheque in favour of any person. Though, the petitioner-complainant reiterated the version enumerated in the complaint when he appeared as CW-1, but the same does not inspire the confidence. It is the specific case that the complainant did not issue withdrawal form for the disputed amount but the debit note, as collected by the police during the inquiry, would clearly show that the petitioner-complainant had authorised the bank to transfer the amount of 30,00,000/- to the saving bank account of Raj Kumar son of Rulia Ram. If the petitioner-complainant had any dispute with regard to the said withdrawal form then he should have proved from the hand-writing expert that the said withdrawal form was not bearing his signatures. During the course of inquiry by the police, it was found that the allegations levelled by the petitioner-complainant were baseless. In

¶28

Criminal Misc. No.M-25723 of 2009(O&M)

¶29

..4..

¶30

fact, the amount was transferred to the saving bank account No. 372 of Raj Kumar son of Rulia Ram as per the request of the petitionercomplainant himself. To support its conclusion, the inquiry officer had recorded the statements of Raj Kumar son of Rulia Ram, Randeep Singh, the Branch Manager, and Prem Tyagi-respondent No.1.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant had vehemently argued that only on the basis of the police report, the complaint could not be dismissed. The argument raised is misconceived. The courts below had not dismissed the complaint only on the basis of the police report received under Section 202, Cr.P.C. In fact, the sound reasons have been recorded for dismissal of the complaint and in support thereof, it has also been considered that the inquiry conducted by the police under Section 202, Cr.P.C also indicated that the allegations levelled by the petitionercomplainant were vague. The two courts below have concurrently arrived at a conclusion that there was no force in the allegations levelled by the petitioner-complainant. This court concurs with the concurrent finding of both the courts below.

¶32

As a sequel to the above, the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶33

March 08, 2013 seema

¶34

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

Raj Kumar v. Prem Tyagi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. Prem Tyagi and Ors.

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

Falia Vs Ved Parkash & Anr.

Sandeep Singh @ Mandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Pushpa and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Bhale Ram Vs State of Haryana

Tirath Ram Vs Baldev Singh