Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
M.A. Siddiqui, J.
Vibha Patel —Petitioner
versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh —Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1077/12
Decided on: 31.07.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Shri A.K Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State No. 1:Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Shri Vivek Dixit, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Disputed amount cannot be released in face of rival claims.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 397 and 401—Dishonour of cheque—Petition seeking direction to release Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of petitioner on supurdnama—It is submitted that this amount is lying idle and it belongs to petitioner and it be given on supurdnama to petitioner and petitioner is ready to furnish bank guarantee as against release of amount in her favour—Since claim of both parties, petitioner as well as respondent, has been rejected by impugned order on ground that without evidence it cannot be decided that which party is legally entitled for the amount, this order is based on well reasons and needs no interference by High Court—However, parties given liberty to make prayer before trial Court which may evolve any scheme under which loss of interest can be avoided by way of fixed deposit. (Paras 4 and 5)
M.A. Siddiqui, J.—Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of counsel for parties.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to quash the Order dated 29.5.12 passed by Judl. Magistrate 1st Class, Itarsi in Criminal Case No.578/11 by which an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- deposited in the name of respondent no.2 was ordered not to be given to any of the parties. In short, the allegation in the revision is that respondent no.2 being servant stole three cheques, out of which one cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- was deposited at Allahabad Bank, Itarsi in Saving Accounts No. 50054409575 by him in his name. On the report of husband of petitioner, police registered a case under Section 381 of IPC against respondent no.2 and Criminal Case No. 578/11 is going on before JMFC, Itarsi. Payment was withheld by the Bank. This petition has been filed to direct release of Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of petitioner on supurdnama.
3. It is submitted that this amount is lying idle and it belongs to petitioner, hence it be given on supurdnama to the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to furnish bank guarantee as against the release of aforesaid amount in her favour.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Against the allegation of petitioner, the defence of respondent is that the cheques were given to him as he is one of the partner of husband of petitioner who lodged the report, and as other cheques were dishonoured, so he has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner. Some cases are stayed by the Apex Court.
5. Since, claim of both parties, petitioner as well as respondent no.2, has been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.5.12 on the ground that without evidence it cannot be decided that which party is legally entitled for the aforesaid amount, this order, in the opinion of this Court, seems to be based on well reasons and needs no interference by this Court. However, if the parties so desire, may make a prayer before the learned trial Court which may evolve any scheme under which the loss of interest can be avoided by way
of fixed deposit, etc. With the above
observations, this petition stands disposed of finally.
Revision petition disposed of with
directions.
*******
