Back
2007 Supreme(Bom) 234
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) VINOD PRASAD, J.
Geeta - Appellant
Versus.
Stateof U.P. & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No.89 of 2006
Decided on :22nd February, 2007.
MA YANK AGRAWAL and SEEMA AGRAWAL, for Applicant.
PANKAJ TYAGI and ARCHNA TYAGI, for Respondents.
Validity of cheques and alternative options offered by the accused are crucial in determining offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Cheque Bounce - Criminal Proceedings - Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138, Section 420, IPC
Fact of the Case:
The complainant gave money to the accused in exchange for cheques, which were later dishonored by the bank. The accused was summoned for offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cheques were presented after their validity period, and therefore, no offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made out. Additionally, the court found that the accused had offered an alternative option to the complainant, and as the complainant did not avail of this option, no offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out.
Issues: Validity of the cheques, intention to cheat, alternative option offered by the accused
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque must be presented within its validity period. Additionally, the court emphasized that the accused's offer of an alternative option to the complainant was a relevant factor in determining the offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, quashed the criminal complaint case, and the summoning order against the accused.
Geeta has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Misc.
Application No.89 of 2006, u/s. 482, Cr.P.C., with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No.266/04, u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420, IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur with the nomenclature Smt. Manju Vs. Geeta. The subsequent prayer is for stay of further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case till the disposal of present application in this Court.
2. The factual matrix of the case has got its genesis in the complaint filed by Smt. Manju w/o. late Prithvi Singh on 13-1-2004 in the Court of CJM, Saharanpur being complaint case No.266/04 with the allegations that husband of the complainant late Prithvi Singh was the employee in Railways and the complainant with her small children was living along with her parents. Accompanied by her father and sisters the complainant used to visit the house of the accused Smt. Manju and resultantly was closely intimated with her. Accused applicant offered the complainant that her father is going to purchase the land for carving out plots and for the said purpose they require Rs.60.000/-. They assured the complainant Smt. Manju that her money will be repaid from the sale proceeds of the plots or in the alternative she will get a plot of 100 square yards. Reposing trust in them and believing the offer to be genuine, the complainant gave Rs.60.000/- to the applicant accused Smt. Geeta on 25-7-2003 in the presence of her sister Babita, Smt. Satto w/o. Yash Pal, Manoj and Deepak. In lieu the applicant accused Geeta issued two cheques of Rs.30.000/- each to the complainant being cheques No.104999 and 105000, both of Punjab and Sindh Bank drawn from account No.12297 dated 5-6-2003 with the assurances that cheques will be honoured after few months. The complainant Smt. Manju presented the aforesaid cheques in her Punjab National Bank for encashment 5-12-2003 but the same were dishonored by Punjab and Sindh Bank with the note that account has been closed and it returned the aforesaid cheques to the complainant with the memos dated 8-12-2003 and 18-12-2003. The complainant gave registered notice to the accused applicant Smt. Geeta on her con'ect address asking her to repay the cheques amount but the notice was also returned on 3-1-2004 with the endorsement that addressee could not be round.
3. As the complainant was cheated to the tune of Rs.60.000/-, therefore, she layed the complaint in the Court of CJM, Saharanpur as mentioned above, appending therewith the photocopy of both the cheques, registered notice sent by her, carbon copy of the notice and the original registry receipt. Learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence and examined the complainant u/S. 200, Cr.P.C. She however did not examine any witness u/s. 202, Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate finding the prima facie case, summoned the present accused applicant Geeta for offences u/S. 138 of N.I. Act as well as u/s. 420, IPC, vide his order dated 15-3-2004 fixing 15-4-2004 for appearance of the accused. Geeta aggrieved by her summoning order preferred criminal revision No.194 of 2004 Geeta versus State and another before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur on 15-6-2004, which was transferred to the Court of additional Sessions Judge Court No.6, Saharanpur for disposal. Her criminal revision was dismissed by the lower revisional Court, vide its order dated 7-10-2005 annexure 4 to the affidavit, hence the present Criminal Misc. Application by the accused with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings.
4. I have heard Sri.. Mayank Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Tyagi and Smt. Archna Tyagi, on behalf of respondent No.2. as well as learned AGA.
5. Sri Mayank Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant raised two submissions. Firstly, he contended that the cheques dated 5-6-2003 were presented in the Bank after the period of its validity by the complainant. Consequently the
