Back
2007 (1) Bankmann 546
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.
Chinthala Cheruvu
and another — Petitioners
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh
and another — Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 1379 of 2006.
Decided on 21-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Prbhakar Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.:: Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate.
Headnote:(i) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 20—Filing up of blank cheque—It is neither a case of material alteration of the cheque nor fabricated or forgery.
(Para 8)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 r/ws 34—Offences under—Petitioner/accused alleged to have got fabricated and forged one of the four blank cheques given as security containing signatures of respondent No. 2 by filling in amount and date and got the same dishonoured and filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act —Held, an implied authority is given to holder of cheque, at the time of entrusting a blank cheque containing signature of drawer to fill in the column there in—If the columns are filled up mentioning date and amount by words and figures, it will not amount to any offence, much less the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 20, 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482. (Paras 6 to 8)
(iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Quashing of proceedings —Complaint filed against the petitioners for various offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 506 r/ws 34 of Penal Code—Second petitioner is allegedly partner of the firm—There is no whisper whatsoever against her either in statement recorded by Investigating Officer or in the charge-sheet filed against the accused—Merely on the ground that she is a partner of the firm, she has been sought to be added—Case against second petitioner shall have to be quashed—Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 r/ws 34. (Para 10)
Facts of the Case:
(A)Petitioner seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against them on the file of JMFC, Kothaguden in CC No. 2055/2005.
(B)Second respondent herein filed a private complaint against petitioner accused which was forwarded to police for investigation and on culmination of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 420, 468, 471 506 r/ws 34 of IPC.
(C)A-2 is wife of A-1 and both are partners in a firm supplying pesticides and fertilizers to farmers of the area. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 handed over four blank cheques as security to petitioners for supply of pesticides and fertilizers to farmers. Payment for pesticides and fertilizers supplied to farmers was made by them in kiad in the form of paddy, chillies, cotton etc.
(D)Main allegation seems to be that disputes arose between petitioners and farmers each side claiming dues against each other. Farmers stopped buying pesticides and fertilizers from petitioners. Petitioners to realise their dues, allegedly got one of the blank cheques given by R 2, fabricated and forged by filing in date and amount got it dishonoured and filed complaint against R -2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
(E)Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed private complaint against petitioners as referred in para (b) above.
(F)Hence this petition for quashing of complaint.
(G)Finding of the Court: i) An implied authority is given to the holder of cheque, at the time of entrusting a blank cheque containing the signatures of the drawer of the cheque alone, to fill the columns therein pursuant to implied authority, if the columns are filled up mentioning the date and amount, it will not amount to any offence much less the offence punishable under Sections 468 & 471 of IPC.
(ii) Merely on the gound that A-2 is a partner of the firm, she has been sought to be added. There has been no allegation whatsoever qua second petitioner attracting any other offences mentioned in the charge-sheet. The cash against second petitioner shall have to be quashed.
H)Result: Case against 1st petitioner quashed as regards offences under Sections 468 & 471 of IPC. Case against 2nd petitioner quashed completely. Criminal petition partly allowed.
Result: Criminal petition partly allowed.
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.—A-1 and A-2 in the crime seek to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings pending against them in C. C. No. 2055/2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Kothagudem
2. On a private compliant filed by the second respondent herein, the same has been forward to the police for investigationinventually, at the cculmination of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners alleging inter alia the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court for the said offences.
3. It was alleged inter alia in the charge-sheet that A-2 is the wife of A-1 and both of them together have been running business as partners under the name and style of Venkata Durga Fertilizers at Paloncha. The de facto complainant, G. Chenna Reddy mediated between the accused-petitioners and the ryots for supply of pesticides and fertilizers to the ryots and as a security, he handed over four blank cheques bearing Nos. 027448 to 027450 containing his signatures drawn on Co-operative Bank, Paloncha under account No. 3251 and also promissory notes to the aggrieved person. For the crop season 1999-2000, pesticides worth Rs.3,50,000 and fertilizers worth Rs.5,00,000 in all Rs.8,50,000, were supplied by the accused-petitioners on credit basis to the farmers LWs 2 to 36. The farmers after reaping the crop, paid in kind of 1,400 quintals of cotton at the rate of Rs.2,000 per quintal worth Rs.26,00,000 on credit to their account with the accused. For the crop season 2000-2001 the complainant purchased pesticides and fertilizers worth Rs. 10,26,000 (Rs.3,26,000 + Rs. 7,00,000 respectively) and after getting the yield, the farmers supplied 1,000 quintals of cotton in ten lorries worth Rs. 16,00,000 on credit to their account. Similarly, for the crop season 2001-2002, the farmers were given pesticides and fertilizers worth in all Rs.15,00,000 (Rs.6,00,000 + Rs.9,00,000 respectively) and the farmers after harvest supplied 1,200 quintals of cotton in 12 lorries worth Rs. 15,00,000 and 390 bags of paddy at Rs. 400 per bag worth Rs. 1,56,000 dried chillies 40 quintals at Rs.2,500 worth Rs.1,00,000. Thus, for all the three seasons, LW1 purchased pesticides and fertilizers for the benefit of LWs 2 to 36 from the petitioners worth in all Rs.33,76,000 and supplied the commodities worth Rs.59,56,000 on credit. On proper accounting, the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.25,80,000 to the farmers. However, when the farmers, refused to purchase the pesticides and fertilizers for the season 2002-03 and asked the accused to settle their account and to pay back whatever amount due to them, the accused paid deaf ears and intimidated the farmers to away with their lives. On the other hand, the accused presented one of the four cheques bearing No. 027448 by forgoing and fabricating the same for an amount of Rs. 8,25,000. with the date 18.12.2002 and when the cheque was bounced, they filed a complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the de facto complainant falsely and the same is pending trial. Thus, both the accused resorted to the offence of fabrication and forgery and got the cheque dishonoured so as to file a complaint against the de facto complainant and thereby committed the offences as stated hereinabove.
4. As aforesaid, the petitioners who are the accused therein filed instant application on the premise that it is nothing but a counter blast to the private complaint filed by them under Section 138 of the Act.
5. The question, therefore, that falls for determination is, whether it was a case of abuse of process of the Court as alleged?
6. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506 r/ws 34 of Indian Penal Code. The main allegation seems to be th
