M VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. BOLLISETTY BAPANAISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by A-3 in C.C. No. 1150 of 2002 on the file of the Court of V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) 1st respondent filed the above case alleging that he subscribed to a chit being run by A-l company and after paying 28th installment he became the highest bidder for Rs. 1,25,000.00, and was given a cheque bearing No. 753845 dated 8-01-2000 for Rs. 3,75,000/-by A-2onbehalf of A-l towards the amount payable to him and since he had no Bank account at Vijayawada and has a Bank account at Guntur, A-2 and A-4 convinced him that they would encash the cheque and send that amount to his Bank account at Guntur by way of transfer, took his signature on the reverse of the cheque, after assuring him that it would not be misused, but failed to send the amount, and so he made enquiries and came to know that the said cheque was encashed by A-2 and A-4 with the connivance of the petitioner, who is the Manager of the Bank and so, the petitioner and other accused are liable for punishment under Sections 120(B), 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the petitioner and others. As stated earlier, this petition is filed by A-3 to quash the complaint against him.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, no offences, as alleged in the complaint, can be said to have been committed by the petitioner, because the cheque, which is alleged to have been signed by the 1st respondent, in fact, would not come to the desk of the petitioner for passing, and he would not even have knowledge of the presentation or passing of the cheque in question. It is his contention that since 1st respondent does not deny his signature on the cheque, the Bank crediting the amount to the account of the persons mentioned above the signature of the 1st respondent on the reverse of the cheque, cannot be an offence, and so the case against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is that since the complainant does not have an account in the Bank of which the petitioner was the Chief Manager, he was under an obligation to verify and satisfy himself that the signature on the cheque presented belonged to the payee, before crediting the amount covered by the cheque to the account of the person mentioned above the signature of the payee and since the petitioner failed to discharge such obligation in company with A-2 and A-4, he also is liable for punishment, and hence there are no grounds to quash the complaint against the petitioner. He placed strong reliance on State of Maharashtra v. I.P. Kalpatri in support of his contention that the complaint cannot be quashed.