SEEMA JAIN Vs. ABHAY SINGH RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/accused has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the criminal proceedings of Criminal case No. 200/10, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Orchha District Tikamgarh , in which the cognizance for the offence of Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was taken against the applicant vide order dated 13.3.2012 (Annexure-A-6).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that, the respondent herein, filed a complaint (Annexure-A-4) against the applicant for taking the cognizance of offence of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and of Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C. As per averments of the complaint, the respondent as well as the applicant/accused, being had inter-se family relations, they were known to each other. The applicant herein was in need of money to purchase some house at Jhansi, and in that connection, she approached to the respondent to provide her loan of Rs.3 Lacs with a request that in consideration of the same, she would give cheque of her account in that respect. On such terms the impugned transaction took place in presence of Pankaj Jain. Accepting such offer of the applicant, the respondent had given her loan of Rs.3 Lacs in consideration of the cheque in dispute. As per further averments such cheque was only having the account number and signature of the applicant while the date was not mentioned on the same. After obtaining the loan when the same was not repaid by the applicant as per demand of the respondent for a longer period, then such cheque was deposited by the respondent with his Banker for collection, but such cheque was received back from the Banker as dishonored with the memo showing that the same has been dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account on which within the prescribed period, the statutory demand notice was sent by the respondent to the applicant and when the same was not complied with, then impugned complaint was filed in the above-mentioned Court. It is also mentioned in the complaint that during the course of demand of the aforesaid sum when the respondent came to Jhansi, where the applicant is working, some incident of quarrel with criminal intimidation was committed by the applicant with the respondent. With these averments the prayer for taking the cognizance of the offence of Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C. is made.

(3.) Applicant'S counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record including the complaint as well as the order of the trial Court dated 13.3.2012 (Annexure-A-6), argued that even on taking into consideration the averments of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. as accepted in it's entirety even then, the abovementioned offence in which the cognizance was taken by the trial Court, is not made out against the applicant. In continuation he said that, it is apparent from the complaint that subsequent to receiving the cheque by the respondent it's blank places were filled up and in such premises, the alteration was carried out in the same and on the basis of such document the cognizance of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act could not be taken against the applicant. So far as the cognizance of Sections 506 and 504 of I.P.C. is concerned, he said that undisputedly such incident was happened at Jhansi where the applicant is residing and working and, therefore, in any case, there was no cause of action in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Orchha to take the cognizance of such offence. Such cognizance could have been taken by the appropriate Court of Jhansi, if the ingredients of the alleged offence are made out against the respondent before such Court. So, in any case such cognizance is not sustainable and prayed for admitting and allowing the petition.