RAKESH CHOWHAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the orders dtd. 15/1/2021 and 27/1/2021 whereby charges for the offence under Sec. 420 IPC were framed against the Petitioner in Criminal Case No.669/2020 by the JMFC, Mahasamund.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 8/11/2019, Respondent No.2-Kushal Ram Dhruv, Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Baghbahara had lodged a written complaint dtd. 14/10/2019 alleging that the Petitioner, after purchasing paddy from 19 farmers to the tune of Rs.61,88,650.00, given them a cheque, which was dishonoured and thereby cheated the farmers and based on such allegations, offence under Sec. 420 IPC was registered against him at P.S Baghbahara vide FIR No.251/2019 on 8/11/2019.

(3.) Shri Lohani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not press IA No.01/2021, an application filed under Sec. 437-6 Cr.P.C as no relief has been claimed in the prayer clause, therefore, he seeks to withdraw the same as he has not made the said prayer before the trial Court and directly made the same in this Petition, which is accordingly dismissed as not pressed with liberty to prefer the same before the Court below. He submits that as the ingredients alleged in the complaint attract offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') and no offence of cheating is made out against him, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings for the offence under Sec. 420 IPC amounts to abuse of process of law. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Jayaswami and Another vs. State of Orissa and Another decided on 23/2/2005 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.2195/2004 wherein, after referring to G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U.P and Others reported (2000) 2 SCC 636, it was held that unless specific instances of cheating is pleaded, issue of bounced cheque would not attract the provisions of Sec. 420 IPC and would be confined to Sec. 138 of the NI Act. He further submits that most of the farmers have already entered into compromise with the Petitioner and they were also paid for the same and the Petitioner may file an application for compounding the said offence in accordance with law before the trial Court for the victims who have entered into compromise. Learned Counsel further submits that four of the farmers have also filed an application under Sec. 138 of the NI Act. He lastly relied upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others vs. State of west Bengal and Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124.