SANJAY Vs. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of FIR 246 of 2002 dated 6th June, 2002 under Sections 420/468/471 of India Penal Code on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE allegations against the petitioners are that 600 cement bags were taken by the petitioners by representing that they are running business of building material in the name and style of Sai Baba Building Material. It is also alleged that the petitioner No. 2 impersonated himself to be the owner of b. K. Traders situated at Saboli Road, Narela, and issued two cheques for rs. 25,000/- each dated 25th March, 2002 and 25th June, 2006. The said cheques when presented by respondent No. 2 for encashment were returned with the remarks "insufficient funds and the signatures different". The cheques issued by the petitioners do not belong to the petitioner No. 1 and were from the chequebook of shri Yogesh Kumar. The cheques are not allegedly signed by Shri Yogesh Kumar. In the circumstances, the allegation is that the petitioner knowingly and intentionally issued the cheques knowing that the same will not be honoured on presentation nor the petitioner could legally sign the cheques belonging to another person and thus the petitioner No. 1 has forged the signatures of Shri yogesh Kumar and has committed offence under Section 468/471. Shri Pradeep, petitioner No. 2, is also alleged to be fully aware of the cheating committed by the petitioner No. 1 as he has also impersonated as owner of M/s. B. K. Traders, in whose name the bags of cements were taken by the petitioner.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the FIR against the petitioner, it cannot be inferred prima facie that the complaint does not constitute or disclose any offence against the petitioner so as to entail interference by this court. It cannot be inferred that the allegations made in the complaint do not make out the case against the complainant or does not disclose essential ingredients of the offence under which the FIR is registered against them, nor it can be inferred that the allegations made against the petitioners are patently absurd and inherently improbable. No fundamental or legal defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.