RAM KARAN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of order dtd. 2/5/2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby the complaint bearing No.0001622/2014 dtd. 5/12/2023 titled as Ram Karan versus Vijay Kumar under Ss. 406/420/467/468/471/506 and 120-B IPC came to be dismissed and the order dtd. 15/9/2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the mother of the complainant took a loan of Rs.11.00 lakhs from DPCARD Bank Ltd. after mortgaging her land, for the repayment of which the complainant gave 10 blank cheques bearing No.477171 to 477180 to the bank officials as security in the year 2008. The said amount of loan was re-paid and the bank issued a 'No due certificate', upon which the entry in the revenue record regarding the mortgage of the land was deleted and again the bank gave loans to the mother of the complainant by mortgaging her land. It was alleged that the bank officials, i.e. respondent no.2 and 3 misused cheque No.477171, gave the same to accused No.1, who upon dishonour of said cheque, upon presentation for encashment, filed a complaint at the District Court, Kurukshetra, against the complainant. Several complaints were also made to the police for taking necessary action against the accused persons, but to no effect. Therefore, the complaint had been filed.

(3.) The complainant produced evidence in support of his complaint. Report under Sec. 202 of Cr.PC was also called by the court and after going through the evidence produced by the complainant and considering the report under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C., the complaint was dismissed. The trial court while dismissing the complaint on 2/5/2015 observed that complainant did not produce on record the clearance certificate allegedly issued by the bank. The complainant did not call any witness from the concerned bank to prima-facie show that indeed ten cheques were given to the said bank and out of those cheques some cheques were presented in the bank for encashment and that when the said cheques were not honoured, the complaint was filed. It was also observed that in the report under Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C., it was stated that deletion of the entry, regarding the name of the complainant and his mother was on account of a forged loan clearance certificate presented to the revenue authorities and that upon the cheques presented by the complainant, the stamp of the bank was available, which was not available on the cheque used by the respondent no. 1. It was observed by the Trial Court that it appeared that in order to put pressure upon the bank, which had already started recovery proceedings upon non-payment of the loan amount, the complaint had been filed.