Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 404
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B.D. Rathi, J.
Kuldeep Shrivastava v. Ramesh Chandra
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6617 of 2008 (Gwalior) : against order dated 26.3.2008, passed in Criminal Case No.4233 of 2006 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena; Decided on 7.8.2014.
Prashant Sharma and Devendra Sharma for petitioner;
D.D. Bansal for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- private complaint -- rejected -- ground for filling revision available -- revision not filed -- direct petition before High Court -- is maintainable.
Held : Necessarily in order to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, appropriate order can be issued by this court under inherent powers vested under section 482 of CrPC, therefore petitions are maintainable for seeking such kind of reliefs. Only on the ground of non-availing of remedy provided for filing criminal revision would not create obstruction in the way of filing such petitions under section 482 of CrPC. (2009)2 SCC 370 followed.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.397/401 -- private complaint rejected -- such order challenged in revision -- no opportunity of hearing provided -- such order is in violation of natural justice -- cannot be allowed to stand -- petition allowed.
Held : Admittedly, opportunity of hearing was not afforded by the revisional court to the petitioners when rejection order of private complaint was challenged in revision. This revision was allowed without giving any opportunity of hearing by directing the complaint to be registered for the alleged offence against the petitioners. Such kind of orders cannot be allowed to stand which has been passed in violation of the principal of natural justice. (2006)1 SCC (Cri.) 345 followed.
(3) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- S.138 -- complaint registered against petitioner -- cheques not issued by him -- offence under section 138 -- not made out -- similarly -- cheques issued by another person -- petitioner had not drawn the cheques on his account -- offence not made out under NI Act -- both petitions allowed.
Held : The complaint filed against petitioner-Kuldeep Shrivastava, who had drawn the cheques for the other account holder, is not tenable and deserves to be dismissed for the offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act. Similarly, petitioner-Sandeep Shrivastava can also not be held liable for these cheques because these cheques were not drawn by him. Virtually, Kuldeep Shrivastava had issued the cheques for the account which was maintained by Sandeep Shrivastava and therefore for these four cheques complaint against petitioner-Sandeep Shrivastava was not also maintainable. AIR 2000 SC 828 followed.
(4) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- Ss.142(b) and 138(c) -- complaint should be made within one month of cause of action arose -- two cheques were dishonoured -- notice given on 19.9.2000 -- received on 23.9.2000 -- complaint submitted on 30.10.2000 -- was beyond period of limitation. [Para 16
¼1½ naM+ izfØ;k] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && izkbosV ifjokn && [kkfjt fd;k x;k && iqujh{k.k izLrqr djus dk vk/kkj miyC/k && iqujh{k.k izLrqr ugh && lh/ks ;kfpdk mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k && izpyu ;ksX;A
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vko’;d :i ls fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; dh izfØ;k dk nq:i;ksx jksdus ds vuqØe es ;k vU;Fkk U;k;nku dk var lqjf{kr djus ds fy, bl U;k;ky; }kjk naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds varXkZr fufgr varfuZfgRk ‘kfDr;ks ds v/khu leqfpr vkns’k tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gS blfy, bl izdkj dh lgk;rk ds fy, ;kfpdk,a izpyu ;ksX; gSA dsoy vkijkf/kd iqujh{k.k izLrqr djus dk iznŸk mipkj dk ykHk u mBkus dk vk/kkj ,slh ;kfpdk /kkjk 482 naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu izLrqr djus ds jkLrs es ck/kk ugh cusxkA ¼2009½2 ,l lh lh 370 vuqlfjrA
¼2½ naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397@401 && izkbosV ifjokn [kkfjt && ,sls vkns’k dks iqujh{k.k es pqUkkSrh && lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj ugh fn;k x;k && ,slk vkns’k izkd`frd U;k; fl}kar ds mYYk?kau es gS && fLFkj ugh j[kk tk ldrk && ;kfpdk LohdkjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % Lohd`r :i ls] iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZvksa dks lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj ugh fn;k x;k tc izkbosV ifjokn dks [kkfjt djus okys vkns’k dks iqujh{k.k es pqukSrh nh xbZA ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds fo:} vkjksfir vijk/k ds fy, lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj fn, fcuk ifjokn iathc) djus dk funsZ’k nsrs gq, iqujh{k.k Lohdkj dh xbZA ,sls vkns’k fLFkj ugh j[ks tk ldrs tks izkd`frd U;k; fl)kar ds mYy?kau es ikfjr fd, x, gksA ¼2006½1 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 345 vuqlfjrA
¼3½ ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 && /kkjk 138 && ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo:) ifjokn iathc) && mlds }kjk pSd tkjh ugh fd;k x;k && /kkjk 138 ds v/khu vijk/k && ugh curk && Bhd blh rjg && pSd vU; O;fDr }kjk tkjh && ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk pSd vius [kkus ij ugh fy[ks x, && ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds varxZr vijk/k ugh curk gS && nksuks ;kfpdk,a LohdkjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kfpdkdrkZ dqynhi JhokLro ds fo:) ifjokn izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlus vU; [kkrk/kkjd ds fy, pSd fy[ks] izPkyu ;ksX; ugh gS ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 138 ds v/khu naMuh; vijk/k ds fy, fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA Bhd blh rjg] ;kfpdkdrkZ lanhi JhokLro dks Hkh bu pSd ds fy, nk;h ugh Bgjk;k tk ldrk D;ksafd ;s pSd mlds }kjk ugh fy[ks x,A ;FkkFkZ es] dqynhi JhokLro }kjk ml [kkrs ds fy, pSd tkjh fd, Fks tks lanhi JhokLro }kjk vuqjf{kr fd;k x;k Fkk] blfy, bu pkj pSd ds fy, ;kfpdkdrkZ lanhi JhokLro ds fo:) Hkh ifjokn izpyu ;ksX; ugh gSA , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 828 vuqlfjrA
¼4½ ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 && /kkjk 142¼[k½ ,oa 138¼x½ && okn dkj.k mRiUu gksus ds ,d ekl ds vanj dj nsuk pkfg, && nks pSd vuknfjr fd, x, &7 lwpuk&i= 19-9-2000 dks fn;k && 23-9-2000 dks izkIr && ifjokn 30-10-2000 dks izLrqr && le; lhek ls ijs FkkA ¼iSjk 16
1. 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 CrPC 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 v. Sandeep Shrivastava), registered on private complaint.
4. As per the case of the complainant, on 1.6.2000 Sandeep Shrivasvata (petitioner of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6686/2008), who is brother of Kuldeep Shrivastava, took a four wheeler vehicle of Tata having registration No.407 MP06/E-0798 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 IPC, 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 Criminal 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 IPC. On 5.11.2007, the accused were arrested and bailed out on furnishing b
