DINESH LODHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing proceedings arising out of FIR No. 244/2000 of the Police Station Bhupalpura, Distt. Udaipur for offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 I. P. C. registered against the accused petitioner.

(2.) THIS misc. petition arises in the following circumstances: i) Respondent No. 2 lodged a report with the Police Station Bhupal-pura on 13. 10. 2000 against the present accused petitioner stating that some time back one Rajesh Lodha who was brother of present accu- sed petitioner was running VC (lottery) and in that complainant was also one of the members and that VC (lottery) was of Rs. 50000/- and for that he also issued a cheque on 20. 9. 90 No. 667239 after putting signatures on the cheque, but no amount was mentioned in it and that cheque was given to Rajesh Lodha. Thereafter the amount of VC (lottery) was paid by him to Rajesh Lodha and that blank cheque was demanded by the complainant from Rajesh Lodha and Rajesh Lodha informed the complainant that blank cheque was with him brother Dinesh Lodha, present accused petitioner, but that cheque was not returned to him. Thereafter the accused petitioner was found involved in making forged notes and remained in jail for number of periods and thereafter Rajesh Lodha was murdered. Thereafter even the present accused petitioner was involved in so many criminal cases and he had come back to Udaipur from Bombay and by dishonestly to defraud the complainant, the accused petitioner inserted amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- in that blank cheque and the presented that cheque for payment and thus by doing so he had tried to deceive the complainant as no transaction had taken place between him and the accused petitioner. Thereafter he enquired from the Bank and he came to know that no transaction had taken place since 1992 and thereafter action be taken against the accused petitioner.

(3.) THAT at this stage, without entering into serious controversy, it may be stated that from the certificate Annex. 1 issued by the Bank, it is clear that the disputed cheque was issued on 30. 7. 90. Thus prima facie cases exists in favour of the complainant as it is the case of the complainant that the petitioner has misused the misplaced cheque.