RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. SHAILENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Indore in criminal revision No. 629 of 2008 whereby the order dated 25.8.2008 passed by JMFC, Indore in criminal case No. 917 of 2008 has been confirmed, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 2 are husband and wife. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "NI Act") against the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner alleging that there was an agreement to sale of a piece of land bearing No. 1293 between petitioner and respondent No. 2 and also with maternal uncle of respondent No. 1, it was alleged that since the agreement was cancelled, therefore, the respondent No. 2 issued two cheques valuing Rs. 61,000.00 and Rs. 50,000.00 each in favour of respondent No. 1. It was alleged that the cheques were presented by the respondent No. 1 but the same were bounced by the Bank. Further case of the respondent No. 1 was that the cheque amount was not paid by the petitioner inspite of demand of notice. On the basis of these allegations it was alleged that respondent No. 2 and petitioner have committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of NI Act. It was prayed that cognizance be taken against them. After holding enquiry and after recording of evidence under Sec. 200 and 202 of Crimial P.C. cognizance was taken by learned Trial Court. After notice petitioner appeared and moved application to the effect that petitioner be discharged as petitioner is not involved with the alleged offence. The application was contested by the respondent No. 1. After hearing both the parties learned Trial Court dismissed the application against which the revision petition was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed, hence present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that there is nothing against the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is not the person who has signed the cheques. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has signed the cheques for which petitioner cannot be prosecuted. It is submitted that so far as revision petition filed by the petitioner before learned Revisional Court is concerned, learned Revisional Court has dismissed the petition after relying on the decision in the matter of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal, 2004 (4) MPLJ 1 wherein Honourable Apex Court has observed that if the Magistrate issues process, it is not open for the accused to invoke Sec. 203, Code Criminal Procedure as review of the order is not been contemplated. Honourable Apex Court further observed that remedy lies in invoking Sec. 482 of the Code. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by Honourable Apex Court petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.