SUMAN BALA Vs. NAROTAM NARESH WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, reversing the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra in Criminal Complaint No. 154 -1 of 2006 dismissing the complaint instituted by the complainant Narotam Naresh Walia.

(2.) THE complainant pleaded that his wife Smt.Prem Lata Walia had built a shopping Complex -cum -Guest House at Dehra in the year 2005. He had requested Shri Rajesh Banta son of Shri Mansha Ram Banta to arrange for some money through a financier at Shimla. Rajesh Banta introduced the complainant to Ms. Suman Bala, who was running financing business aL Shimla, and a sum of Rs. 90,000/ - was advanced on 21.7.2005 through Shri Rajesh Kumar Banta which was to be repaid in ten monthly installments of Rs. 10,000/ - each. Ms. Suman Bala is alleged to have procured cheque No. 840787, dated 21.7.2005 from the complainant of his Saving Bank Account No. 630 maintained in Punjab National Bank, Dehra, for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - as a security for the aforesaid payment. The complainant alleged that he repaid an amount of Rs. 40,000/ - to the accused by way of banK draft No. 651165, dated 4.10.2005 and another draft No. 651336, dated 29.10.2005 of Rs. 10,000/ - and Rs. 20,000/ - in cash through Rajesh Banta. Since the validity of cheque No. 840787, dated 21.7.2005 was no expire, therefore/Ms. Suman Bala asked the complainant for one more postdated cheque through Rajesh Banta to be kept as security for repayment. The complainant duly complied with it and a blank post -dated cheque No. 504629 of Rs. one lac was given to respondent Ms. Suman Bala. Accused Suman Bala with mala fide intention, despite having received the entire loan amount, presented the cheque and withdrew the entire Rs. one lac for which she was legitimately not entitled to. It was pleaded that the accused be proceeded against for offences under Sections 465, 463, 471, 417, 418, 420 and 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and punished accordingly.

(3.) THE complainant preferred a revision against this decision before the learned Sessions Judge, who vide the impugned judgment set aside the order holding that the learned trial Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction in law in arriving at a conclusion that no case is made out since the learned Court has pointed out certain contradictions in the form of omissions in the complaint/evidence which exercise could not be undertaken at the stage of consideration of complaint for issuance of process under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code '). The accused are now in revision before this Court.