Disposed

Vijay Kumar Jangid S/O Late Shri Laxmikant Jangid, v. Madanlal Saini S/O Ramdev Saini

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2025CRLMP/5457/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cognizance for cheque dishonour was taken against a petitioner despite the record showing the cheque bore his deceased father's signature, not his. The High Court found the order perverse, quashed the cognizance and revisional orders, and remitted the matter to the trial court to reconsider cognizance afresh with a hearing to the petitioner.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vijay Kumar Jangid S/O Late Shri Laxmikant Jangid, Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:35624]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5457/2023

¶4

Vijay Kumar Jangid S/o Late Shri Laxmikant Jangid, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ward No. 51, Jamuna Resort, Infront Of Nathji Ka Teela, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Madanlal Saini S/o Ramdev Saini, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Baniya Wali Dhani, Tan Bagad, Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu (Raj).

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brij Bhushan Ojha

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶11

04/09/2025

¶12

Under challenge is order dated 14.03.2022, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, in Criminal Case No. 88/2022 whereby cognizance for offence under Section 138 NI Act was taken against petitioner so also order dated 08.08.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jhunjhunu, dismissing Criminal Revision Petition thereagainst.

¶13

Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that as per averment made in the criminal complaint, cheque is signed by petitioner’s father Laxmikant Jangid and not by petitioner. Further, Laxmikant Jangid had passed away on 29.08.2020, whereas the cheque in question bears date 14.01.2021. It has been urged that the trial Court, without adverting to this factual aspect, took cognizance against petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act under the assumption that cheque was signed by petitioner.

[2025:RJ-JP:35624]

[CRLMP-5457/2023]

(2 of 4)

Further, contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that indeed cheque in question of Jamna Resort was stolen by the complainant and forged signature of Laxmikant Jangid, being owner of Jamna Resort, has been marked as also a post-date on that cheque, has been filled and cheque has been misused. Petitioner lodged an FIR but negative final report has been submitted due to pending proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act in respect of cheque in question.

¶18

Learned counsel submits that on filing the revision petition against the order of cognizance, Revisional Court did not appreciate this admitted factual aspect and declined to interfere with the order of cognizance within its limited jurisdiction, hence, in such circumstances, order of cognizance warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.

¶19

Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of complainant states that the complainant claims his dues against petitioner and his father who were owner of Jamna Resort. Petitioner’s father acknowledged his dues vide agreement dated 11.07.2019 and petitioner acknowledged to pay such dues under agreement dated 06.08.2019. It has been submitted that cheque of Jamna Resort was issued to clear such dues and although petitioner’s father has passed away, yet petitioner can be prosecuted for dishonor of cheque in question within scope of Section 138 of NI Act. Learned counsel has relied upon the averment of criminal complaint, issuance of legal notice and other documents in support of criminal complaint. His submission is that order of cognizance does not warrant any interference.

[2025:RJ-JP:35624]

[CRLMP-5457/2023]

(3 of 4)

Having considered the rival contention of both the parties and from perusal of the order impugned dated 14.03.2022, it is apparent that the trial Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act against petitioner, with observation that cheque is signed by accused-petitioner Vijay Kumar Jangid. Indisputably, cheque is not signed by Vijay Kumar Jangid. Hence, such observations of trial Court are per se illegal and contrary to record. In addition, a bare perusal of cheque in question (certified copy of which is available on record as part of Annexure-1), goes to show that same is signed by Laxmikant Jangid on behalf of Jamna Resort, though, the signature of Laxmikant Jangid has also been disputed by the petitioner. Further, it is an undisputed fact that petitioner’s father Laxmikant Jangid has passed away on 29.08.2020 and the factum of death of Laxmikant Jangid is an admitted fact as stated in the criminal complaint as well.

¶24

In view of above, without entering into merits/demerits of the rival contentions made by counsel for the petitioner since the order impugned suffers from grave perversity on face of it, counsel for both the parties are agreeable to quash the order impugned and to consider their contentions afresh by the trial Court before passing any fresh order.

¶25

In view of above, the impugned order of cognizance dated 14.03.2022 so also order dated 08.08.2023, passed by the Revisional Court are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶26

Trial Court shall consider the matter afresh, at the stage of cognizance, as to whether petitioner can be prosecuted and cognizance against petitioner, for offence under Section 138 of NI Act can be taken, on the basis of averment made in the complaint

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:35624]

[CRLMP-5457/2023]

and documents enclosed therewith. It is expected that the trial Court shall provide hearing to the petitioner as well, while passing the order of cognizance, and the exercise may be done preferably within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if possible.

¶31

Accordingly, the instant misc. petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Interim order dated 24.01.2024 stands vacated.

¶33

Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand

¶34

disposed of.

¶35

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶36

pcg/130

Vijay Kumar Jangid S/O Late Shri Laxmikant Jangid, v. Madanlal Saini S/O Ramdev Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vijay Kumar Jangid S/O Late Shri Laxmikant Jangid, v. Madanlal Saini S/O Ramdev Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sawar Lal Nayak S/O Shyoji Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Meena S/O Ramavtar Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sakhiya Manish Son of Shri Kamlesh Bhai, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajit Ametha Son of Giriraj Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakti Singh S/O Dashrath Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamta Kumari D/O Jagdish Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan