LG ELECTRONICS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners M/s. LG Electronics and its Area Manager Mr. Arvind Sharma seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 47/2007 registered against them at the Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 403,406,407,409, 420, 467,468,471 and 506 read with 120B, PC. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner company had entered into a dealership agreement with the respondent No. 3 firm named M/s. T.M. Electronics of Bharatpur. It is alleged that the respondent firm in furtherance of the dealership contract, gave a blank cheque towards security to the petitioner company on 19.2.2003 being Cheque No. 586202 drawn on Punjab & Sindh Bank, Bharatpur. It is further the case of the complainant that since there were some changes in the constitution of the respondent firm, as such the Bank account from which the aforementioned cheque was given, was closed and the petitioner company was requested by written intimation not to use the said cheque and to return back the said cheque. In the mean time, the complainant alleges that some disputes started arising between the company and the complainant firm and ultimately, the company started giving threats to the complainant that the dealership of the complainant firm would be terminated. The complainant firm instituted a suit for injunction against the company in the Court of Civil Judge, Bharatpur, despite that, another firm by the name of M/s. National Electronics was appointed as a dealer for the company at Bharatpur and ultimately, the complainant had to file a contempt petition against the company. The complainant further alleges that he came to know that the company and its directors conspired to make fraudulent endorsements in the blank cheque given by the firm and projecting the cheque to be issued on 6.11.2006, the cheque was presented. In the Bank despite the fact that the account had been closed and despite the fact that the cheque which was being held in trust had to be returned back to the complainant by the company and as such, the complainant alleged that the company by misusing the cheque in question by filling in the amount and date, has committed the offences of forgery and cheating. Setting out the above allegations, the respondent No. 2 Ranjeet Singh claiming himself to be an authorised person of the firm filed a complaint in the Court of C.J.M., Bharatpur on 4.1.2007 from where the same was forwarded to the Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. where the F.I.R. No. 47/2007 has been registered and investigation commenced.

(2.) xxx xxx xxx

(3.) The company-L.G. Electronics and its area manager, the petitioners herein, have approached this Court by way of this misc. petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. impugned. Praying for quashing of the impugned F.I.R., Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged merely to harass, humiliate and victimise the company and its directors/officers for ulterior motives. It has been submitted that an ex facie reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence whatsoever. It has further been submitted that civil litigation was filed by Ranjeet Singh in a mala fide manner against the company. It has also been argued that admittedly the cheque was given against security and since the complainant firm did not adhere to the conditions of dealership, the company was forced to take action of invocation of the security against the firm and it is in the process of that action that the cheque was put into the Bank account of the company for encashment for recovering the outstanding dues of the company. It has also been submitted that the company was very much entitled to fill in the cheque of security and present the same for encashment. It has also been submitted that the mala fides of the complainant are writ large on the face of the record because as per the complainant, he claims to have asked for the security cheque in issue to be returned but did not replace the same with another cheque of security. In absence of a replacement cheque being given, the company was very much entitled to retain the original cheque and present the same for encashment. It is submitted that the company was not obliged to return the cheque simply on the asking of the complainant unless a replacement cheque was given.