IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the need for legal evidence to proceed against the accused and highlights the essential elements required to prove offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application is filed by the applicant – original accused no.3 challenging the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar dated 01.05.2015 in Criminal Case No.2373 of 2014 below exh.15 whereby, the discharge application filed by the present applicant came to be rejected.

2. It is the case of the complainant, who is the respondent no.2 that Hitachi JCB machine was hired by the accused nos.1 to 3 named in the private complaint, who are the partners of Ajay Salt Works. The rent amount which fixed of Rs.1,50,000/- was not paid, therefore, the cheque bearing no.073848 of Rs.1,25,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant and assurance was given that on depositing the said cheque, the amount would be credited in the account.

3. On depositing the said cheque, the same was dishonoured on the ground that the signatures of the partners which are required, are not there in the cheque. Feeling cheated, the private complaint came to be filed under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. On recording the verification, the learned trial Court has passed an order under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the police officer of ‘C’ Division police station, Bhavnagar to submit the report. The report was submitted by the police officer on 01.01.2013 contending that the cheque which was dishonoured, was not signed by the present applicant and during the inquiry, it was found that three accused, namely, Ajaybhai Trivedi, Chakurbhai Vajubhai Chauhan and Ramjibhai Vajubhai Chauhan had cheated the complainant by keeping the present applicant in dark.

4. Considering the report, the learned trial Court has issued the summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 06.05.2014. The present applicant has preferred an application below exh.15 praying to discharge from the charges on the ground that as per the report submitted by the inquiry officer, all the transactions were done without knowledge of the applicant and in the cheque also, there was no any signature of the applicant. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate, the learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that though the cheque was the self-cheque, it is yet to be examined that how the complainant came into the possession of the cheque and as the applicant is the partner of Ajay Salt Works, therefore, the application at this stage is not required to be considered.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2015, the present revision application is filed before this Court.

6. Heard learned advocate Mr.Tatvdeep Jani for the applicant. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Thakker for the respondent no.2 has requested for time on the ground that though on 15.12.2023, when the matter was adjourned, he called his client but, his client did not turn up and would likely to come in the next week.

7. This Court is of the view that this matter is adjourned from time to time and is pending since 2015, therefore, the request made by learned advocate Mr.Thakker is declined.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Jani submits that as per the report submitted by the inquiry officer, which is annexed with the application, it transpires that the cheque which was issued in favour of the complainant for payment of rent of JCB machine, did not contain the signature of the present applicant. From the statements recorded during the inquiry, the other partners had stated that without taking the consent of the present applicant, the transaction was carried out and, therefore, the cheque which was issued in favour of the complainant, did not having signature of the applicant. The inquiry officer concluded that the amount which is required to be paid towards the rent was without knowledge of the present applicant and as the signature of the present applicant did not made, the bank has not cleared the cheque and it was returned with the endorsement “requisite sig