JAGMOHAN SINGH THAPAR Vs. CHUNI LAL CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved from the order dated 28th May, 1986, of Shri K.S. Pal. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, whereby his application under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping of the proceeding and the discharge of the accused was dismissed summarily. The short ground taken by the Lower Court while dismissing the application, is that such an application is not maintainable as the pre-charge evidence is yet to be led by the complainant, and that it is only after the consideration of the evidence to be led by the parties that the question of discharge of the accused can be considered. This ground, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is contrary to law and the provisions of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) In order to appreciate the grounds urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to keep in mind the undisputed facts. The petitioner Shri Jagmohan Singh Thapar, alongwith his family, is a tenant of one Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Shri Chunni Lal Chaudhary, respondent No. 1 in the rear portion of E-15, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The tenancy started as far back as 1977. The rent of the premises is fixed at Rs 900/- per menslim. It is the case of the landlady that the petitioner issued a cheque on 5.5.1983 for Rs 900/. as rent for the month of May, 1983 in her favour, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Shri Chunni lal Chaudhary is the husband general attorney of Smt. Shanti Devi. This cheque was deposited by the complainant Shri Chunni Lal Chaudhary in his account in the State Bank of India, New Colony, Gurgaon, but was returned with the remark A/c closed with us by the Syndicate Bank, on 23.5.1983. On the basis of the return of cheque, the complainant preferred to file the complaint u/s 420 I.P.C. In the Court of Shri Bharat Bhushan, A.C.M.M. New Delhi, on 3 1.7.1985, alleging therein that the petitioner had issued the said cheque knowing fully well that he had already closed his account with his bankers with dishonest intentions. The accused had a mala tide intentions to cheat the petitioner and as such he may kindly be dealt with according to law. This complaint was tiled on 31.7.85 i.e. after a period of about 2 years and 3 months. This complaint was marked to the Court of Shri K.S. Pal. The learned Magistrate on examining the complainant passed the order of summoning the petitioner on 14.1.1986 for 121986. The petitioner was served with the summons on 20.3.86 and immediately thereafter moved the application which is under consideration.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel fur the petitioner is that this very grievance of the dishonour of the cheque was the subject matter of the complaint against the present petitioner and his wife Mrs. Daijit Thapar, before the Court of Shri J.K. Pali, MM. New Delhi, concerning Police Station Lajpat Nagar. The learned Magistrate, on examination of the complainant and two other witnesses, rejected the allegation totally against the wife of the petitioner and dismissed the complaint against the petitioner u/s. 420 I P.C. but summoned him u/s. 506 I.P.C. The said complaint is still pending in the Court of Shri AS. Yadav, M.M. Delhi. The second complaint of Shri Chaudhary is on the same facts but in order to mislead the Court, showed the jurisdiction under Police Station Sri Niwas Pun, whereas the place of occurrence falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Lajpat Nagar. In the second complaint, the complainant intentionally did not disclose the true state of affairs inasmuch as he had already been informed of the closing of the account before the cheque was presented. He also did not disclose about the pendency of his previous complaint and obtained the order of summoning it is also contended that the petitionerTs application for his discharge has been disposed of by the impugned order without referring to the well-settled proposition of law laid down by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, u/s 245 of the Code of Criminal procedure.