MUKESH D AMBANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Cr. C. No. 486/2006 filed by Mukesh D. Ambani (accused No. 1) and M. Cr. C. No. 586/06 filed by Vinod Kumar Singh (accused No. 2) under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') are being disposed of by this common order as both the petitioners have prayed for quashing of entire proceedings including the order dated 13th January 2006 passed in complaint case no. 115/06 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur (in short 'a. C. J. M' ).

(2.) COMPLAINANT/respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned A. C. J. M. under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 474 of the indian Penal Code with the averment that he obtained mobile connection from the accused persons on 29th February 2000 after depositing necessary requisite fee and the accused persons promised to extend certain services described in paragraph 3 of the complaint. After obtaining mobile connection, he enjoyed the services extended by the accused persons and regularly paid the bills raised for the same up to March 2004. However, the bill for the month of April 2004 was abnormally excessive whereupon he contacted the accused persons and tried to ascertain reasons for excessive billing and addressed written complaint for the excessive billing, but the same was never replied to and disconnection of the services was threatened in case the bills are not paid. The bill for the month of May 2004 was also abnormally exorbitant and the protest of the complainant did not invoke any response and in these circumstances, the complainant was made to pay the exorbitant bill on the threat of disconnection on 30th June 2004. Two employees of the accused persons came to the complainant and threatened disconnection if the bills are not paid and they orally informed that on the written application of the complainant there is a change in scheme under which the billing is being made and the same is being done with the written consent of the complainant, though no such written application for change in scheme was filed by the complainant nor any consent was given for the same. He lodged written report with Police Station gol Bazar, Raipur, however, no cognizance was taken by the police. Thereafter the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection act was filed by the complainant before the District Consumer redressal Forum, Raipur (for brevity 'the consumer Forum' ). However, the Consumer forum disposed of the complaint with an observation that there is an allegation of cheating and fraud in the application, which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection act and the complainant may file complaint regarding the allegation of cheating before the competent Court. The photocopy of the alleged letter written by the complainant was filed before the Consumer Forum and original of the same is in possession of the accused persons. The complainant got examined his signature in the above document by the handwriting expert, whereupon the handwriting expert vide his report dated 20th April 2005 opined that the questioned document does not bear signature of the complainant and thus, it is clear that the accused persons fabricated the document by forging his signature and used the same as original with a purpose to cheat him. On the basis of above forged letter, a sum of rs. 3,000 was recovered from the complainant by cheating.

(3.) LEARNED A. C. J. M. recorded statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the code on 18. 7. 2005 and thereafter, the matter was posted for argument before registration on 24. 8. 2005. However, the matter was adjourned by the learned trial Court on six successive dates on one pretext or the other and ultimately, arguments were heard on 13th January 2006. Learned trial Court directed registration of the complaint under sections 420, 465, 468 and 474 of the ipc with an observation that from perusal of the complaint, the accompanying documents and preliminary evidence sufficient grounds for proceeding under Section 420, 465, 468 and 474 against the accused persons are present and it was further directed that on payment of process fee within three days by the complainant, warrant of arrest be issued against the accused persons for their presence on 20th March 2006 before the Court.