LAWS(MPH)-2012-1-192

PRADEEP ALIAS RINKU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On January 02, 2012
Pradeep Alias Rinku Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE is heard on admission.

(2.) SHRI Bansal submits that as per the story of the prosecution, no offence is made out against the petitioner. He submits that as per the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., Navin Panicker issued an account -payee cheque in the name of his elder brother Dinesh Panicker to the tune of Rs. 40000/ -on 7.7.2011. By way of said cheque, Navin Panicker intended to repay the loan which he took from his elder brother Dinesh Panicker. He gave the said cheque to K.P. Radhakrishnan, his office colleague, to deposit it in the bank. In turn, K.P. Radhakrishnan deposited it in the bank on 7.7.2011 and obtained a receipt from the bank. On the next day on 8.8.2011 he received an information from the bank that somebody is caught by the bank authorities, who is projecting himself as Dinesh Panicker and trying to realise the amount mentioned by the said cheque. On the strength of this statement, Shri Bansal submits that admittedly as per the story of prosecution, the cheque was deposited by Radhakrishnan and receipt was obtained by him and was handed over to Navin Panicker. The question of petitioner's involvement does not arise. Confining his attack to offence mentioned under sections 467 and 468, Shri Bansal relied on : AIR 1963 SC 1572 Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration. By relying on para 15 of this judgment, Shri Bansal submits that no offence under section 467 I.P.C. is made out. Admittedly, even as per the story of prosecution the petitioner had not realised the amount on the basis of aforesaid cheque and, therefore, the said section is incorrectly invoked by the court below. He also relied on, 2002 SCC (Cri) 310 Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra to submit that the court below has mechanically framed the charges.

(3.) ON the strength of these legal authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge to the extent offence under sections 467 and 468 is made out against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside.