Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B.D.Rathi, J.
Kuldeep Shrivastava —Petitioner
versus
Ramesh Chandra —Respondent
Misc. Cr. C. Nos.6617 and 6686 of 2008
Decided on 7.8.2014
For the Petitioner:Prashant Sharma and Devendra Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent:D.D. Bansal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Only on ground of non-availing of remedy provided for filing criminal revision would not create obstruction in way of filing petitions under S. 482 of Cr. PC.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 & 142 — Cause of action — For presentation of complaint — For offence under S. 138 arisen on expiry of 15 days from date of receipt of notice issued by complainant — Time stipulated for submission of complaint one month and fifteen days from date of receipt of notice by accused. [Para 14]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Petition under — Maintainability of — HELD — Legislature intentionally worded this provision widely — Necessarily in order to prevent abuse of process of any court — Or otherwise to secure ends of justice — Appropriate order can be issued by high court under inherent powers. [Para 22]
Result: Petition allowed
B.D. Rathi, J.—As the grievance raised in the aforesaid two petitions is identical and same, heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Both the aforesaid petitions have been preferred by the petitioners/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. having been aggrieved by an order dated 26/3/2008 passed in Criminal Case No.4233/06 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena as well as the order dated 3/7/2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No.98/01 while rejecting the order passed by C.J.M., Morena and remanding the matter back to the Magisterial court with a direction to register a case on private compliant of the respondent/complainant for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “NI Act”)
3. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from Criminal Case No.4233/2006 (Ramesh Chand Vs. Sandeep Shrivastava), registered on private complaint.
4. As per the case of the complainant, on 1/6/2000 Sandeep Shrivasvata (petitioner of Misc. Cri.C.No.6686/2008), who is brother of Kuldeep Shrivastava, took a four wheeler vehicle of Tata having registration No. 407 MP06/E0798 on hire from the complainant for a period of six months till 1/12/2000 on monthly rent basis payment of Rs. 9,000/-. The deed to that effect was duly executed before the witnesses. It is alleged that against payment of the hire rent, the petitioner Kuldeep Shrivasvata had drawn four cheques for his brother Sandeep Shrivastava’s Account in favour of the respondent/complainant, bearing No. (i) 064974, dated 3/6/2000 for a sum of Rs.9,000/-, No. (ii) 064971, dated 5/7/2000 for a sum of Rs. 9,000/-, No. (iii) 064972 dated 5/8/2000 for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and No. (iv) 064973 dated 5/9/2000 for a sum of Rs. 9,000/-. When the complainant presented two cheques No. (i) 064974, dated 3/6/2000 for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and No. (ii) 064971, dated 5/7/2000 on 26/7/2000 for encashment at the District Co-operative Central Bank, Morena, same came to be dishonoured on 26/7/2000 for want of sufficient funds in the account of holder of the cheques. Same has been informed by the Bank on 30/7/2000. The complainant duly informed by notice in writing No.13986, dated 16/8/2000, about dishonour of aforesaid two cheques to both the petitioners and to deposit the payment in the account within seven days from the receipt of the notice, but no such amount was deposited by the petitioners.
5. Thereafter, on 12/9/2000, the respondent further presented remaining two cheques No. (iii) 064972 dated 5/8/2000 for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and No. (iv) 064973 dated 5/9/2000 for a sum of Rs. 9,000/-, which too were dishonoured on account of insufficient fund. The complainant then issued registered notice to the petitioners through counsel Shri N.L. Jatav on 19/9/2000 demanding payment within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. Since the petitioners despite of receiving such notice, failed to make the payment, the complaint was filed on 30/10/2000 against the petitioners/accused for committing offence punishable under section 138 of the Act as well as sections 420, 468 of I.P.C., which was dismissed as time barred on 30/3/2001 by the learned C.J.M.
6. Against said rejection order dated 30/3/2001, the complainant preferred Cri. Rev.No.98/2001 before the Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.). The learned Sessions Judge as per order dated 3rd July, 2001 while setting aside the order dated 30/3/2001 and treating the complaint within time, directed the trial Magistrate to register a case against the petitioners/accused and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In compliance of the order dated 3rd July, 2001 passed by the revisional court, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 12/7/2001, took a cognizance against the petitioners only for offence under Section 138 of the Act having found no case made out against the accused for other offences under sections 420, 467, 468, of I.P.C. On 5/11/2007, the accused were arrested and bailed out on
