SAMARENDRA NATH DAS Vs. SUPRIYO MAITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the order dated 18.7.03 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short C JM), Alipore taking cognizance of offence on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party (in short O.P.) and the orders dated 14.8.03 and 20.11.04 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore issuing process against the petitioner and rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharging him in connection with Complaint Case No.C-1808/03 respectively. When the petitioner moved this revisional application in this Court he obtained an interim order of stay of further proceeding of the said complaint case by an order dated 14.1.05. The de facto complainant O.P. has filed one application being C.R.A.N. No. 598/05 praying for vacating the interim order dated 14.1.05 passed by this Court. I intend to dispose of both the revisional applications being C.R.R No. 175/05 and application being C.R.A.N. No. 598/05 by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Mr. Subodh Ukil, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner of the revisional application submitted that the cheque in question bearing No. 143476 drawn on State Bank of India, Taratola Branch was handed over to one Kamal Prasad Basu, along with letter heads which he promised to retain only as security and he had transaction with Kamal Prasad Basu for loan. The said cheque though was signed by the petitioner was blank in respect of amount of the cheque and was undated. When the petitioner demanded return of the signed blank cheque and letter heads said Kamal Prasad Basu did not return the cheque and the blank letter heads. The petitioner, thereafter, informed the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Beniapukur P.S. through written complaint dated 29.6.01 explaining the conduct of said Kamal Prasad Basu and also the fact of non-return of the signed blank cheque and letter heads by Kamal Prasad Basu to him. There was no money lending or business transaction between petitioner and the O.P. complainant. The petitioner now apprehends that as he lodged the complaint against Kamal Prasad Basu, the said person handed over the cheque to the complainant who on the strength of such cheque inserted inflated amount of Rs.7,47,500/-only to harass him.

(3.) To the utter shock of petitioner he received the letter dated 18th June, 2003 from the complainant Samarendra Nath Das who is a third party in the form of a demand notice under section 138B of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act), 1881 as amended. Samarendra Nath Das was not at all known to the petitioner and not even by face nor, there was any transaction of any type with the Samarendra Nath Das including any financial transaction. The petitioner gave a reply by letter dated 9.7.03 against the demand notice sent by Samarendra Nath Das where he disclosed the entire fact and mentioned that the said cheque was handed over to Kamal Prasad Basu which was blank relating to amount and date and also that there was never any type of transaction with him The said Samarendra Nath Das thereafter lodged the complaint against him under section 138 of the NI Act It is totally a false case that has been instituted against him As a false case has been lodged against him he filed an application before the learned Magistrate for discharging him but the learned Magistrate without considering all aspects and the materials on-record dismissed his application The said order was bad in law and a product of non application of the mind of the learned Magistrate and it should be set aside.