UMESH FINANCY Vs. NIYANTO INVESTMENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is a criminal revision under Station 397 and 401, Cr. P. C. against the order of the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore passed in Cr. R. No. 385/99 on 15. 2. 2000 whereby he allowed the revision of the respondent accused persons M/s. Niyanto Investment Ltd. and Kuldeep Grover, authorised person on behalf of M/s Niyanto Investment Ltd. against the framing of charge and discharged them from the charges framed under Section 420, I. P. C. and section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE submission of Mr. Saraf is that his client petitioner had filed a private complaint against the respondents under Section 420, I. P. C. read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the facts, that under an agreement dated 14. 2. 1996 he had sold 21,00,000 equity shares of M/s. Rajani Extraction Ltd. having its registered office a Indore to the second party, i. e. respondent No. 1 and this agreement was signed by the authorised signatory party No. 2 who was also authorised person on behalf of the aforesaid Company. The submission of Mr. Saraf is that the party No. 2 received 5,00,000 shares on 14. 21996 and other 5,00,000 shares on 10. 3. 1996 and thereafter some cheques were issued by some other third party for payment against those shares which he had accepted. The submission of mr. Saraf is that the aforesaid agreement was signed by respondent No. 2 kuldeep Grover and he had also issued receipt for receiving 5,00,000 shares and he had handed over post-dated cheques and promised to honour the same, and the same cheques are signed by accused No. 3. The cheque of Rs. 50 lakhs was presented to Industrial Estate Branch of the State Bank of India for payment by the complainant on 10. 12. 1996, but it was not honoured and the Bank returned the same to the complainant on 24. 12. 1996 with the remark 'funds insufficient'. On 4. 1. 1997 a notice under Section 138 was issued to all the respondents which was served on them on 14. 1. 1997. As the payment was not made, the complainant filed the complaint, against all the accused persons on 12. 2. 1997 and the same was registered under Section 420, I. P. C. read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The opponents-accused persons challenged the registration order of the complaint in Criminal revision No. 347/98 before the Sessions Court. After hearing both the parties revision was rejected on 22. 5. 1999. After recording the evidence before charge the learned Trial Court framed the charge against all the accused persons on 7. 9. 1999 against which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a criminal Revision No. 385/99 and by order dated 15. 2. 2000 the learned first revisional Court allowed the revision and discharge the respondent-accused no. 2 against which he has preferred this revision.

(3.) MR. Saraf further submitted that in view of the agreement dated 14. 2. 1996 it was not proper for the first Revisional Court to allow the revision and interfere in the order of the Trial Court. The further submission of mr. Saraf is that there is a limited scope for interference in the order of framing of charge because the same is being framed on the basis of the complaint as well as the material placed on record. In this case both the respondents accused Nos. 1 and 2 are party to the agreement and they had received the shares. Therefore, they cannot be discharged and it was not proper on the part of the first Revisional Court to interfere in the order of framing of charge by the Trial Court. During the course of arguments, Mr. Saraf also cited a decision in the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. , reported in AIR 1999 SC 1216=ii (1999) CCR 4 (SC)=ii (1999)SLT 523, in which it has been held by the Apex Court that :