SURENDRA THAKRAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.02.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in revision petition No.57/2008, whereby the revisional court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 01.05.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter). The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 01.05.2008 passed by the trial court, whereby the charges for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 Penal Code have been framed against the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.2003, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the trial court with the allegation that on 01.01.2001, he acquired the dealership of the Castrol Point from Castrol India Ltd. in the town of Rawatsar. At that time, the authorised distributor for the Castrol India Ltd. was Janta Agency, Sri Gangangar owned by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was required to obtain stock from him. It is alleged in the complaint that as per the demand of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 handed over two blank cheques to him as security. It is contained in the compliant the respondent No.2 continuously received stock from the petitioner's agency up to Oct., 2001, however, from Nov., 2001, the Castrol India Ltd. has changed his distributorship and appointed M.K.Enterprises, Sri Gangangar as its distributor and since then the petitioner started business with M.K.Enterprises. It is alleged that as the petitioner was not the distributor of the Castrol India Ltd., the respondent No.2 demanded return of the cheques, which were given to the petitioner as security and also wrote a letter to the Bank on 18.12.2001 to stop the payment of those two cheques bearing No.062381 and 062382. However, on 28.08.2003, he received a call from the Manager of the Bank, who informed him that the cheque No.062381 dated 30.03.2003 amounting to INR 1,43,286/- has come to the Bank for clearance. After receiving this information, he contacted to the petitioner along with some other persons and requested him to return the cheques but the petitioner had refused and threatened him that now he is going to present another cheque to the Bank. It is alleged in the complaint that the blank cheques were given to the petitioner in the year 2001 but the petitioner has filled in one cheque No.062381 and presented it to the Bank and as such committed offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 120-B and 471 IPC. On receiving this complaint, the trial court forwarded the same to the police for investigation and the police has lodged an FIR No.293/2011 on 11.11.2003 at Police Station, Rawatsar and started investigation. After concluding the investigation, the police filed a negative final report, while stating that the matter is of civil nature and, therefore, no offence as alleged in the complaint is made out against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a protest petition, upon which, the trial court, after recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 CrPC, has taken the cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Against the order of taking cognizance, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, which too came to be dismissed by the revisional court. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 Penal Code vide order dated 01.05.2008. Being aggrieved with the same the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the trial court, which has been dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2009.

(2.) The orders dated 01.05.2008 and 04.02.2009 passed by the courts below, are under challenge in this criminal misc. petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no doubt about the fact that two cheques were given by the complainant to the petitioner against the security. However, when the complainant had failed to clear the outstanding dues of the petitioner in relation to the stock supplied to him, the petitioner was compelled to take action of invocation of security against the complainant and in the process of that action, the cheque in question was put to the bank of the complainant for encashment for recovering the outstanding dues. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was very much entitled to fill in the cheque and present the same for encashment. It has also been submitted that the respondent No.2 had lodged the complaint against the petitioner due to malafides because when the cheque No. 062381 was not honoured, the petitioner sent a notice to the respondent No.2 on 24.09.2003 but he deliberately refused to accept the said notice and thereafter the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent No.2 under the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.Act' hereinafter) and only with an intention to pre-empt the proceedings under section 138 of the N.I.Act, the respondent No.2 has filed this false complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even if it is admitted that the petitioner has filled in the amount and date in the blank cheque, then also, it would not amount to forgery or making a false document as defined under sections 463 and 464 Penal Code because it is not in dispute that cheque in question, issued in favour of petitioner firm was handed over by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner bears his signature and mere insertion of date and amount in cheque does not amount to material alteration and the same is permissible as per the provisions of section 118 of the N.I.Act. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the material available on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any forgery for the purpose of cheating and no case for commission of offence under punishable sections 467, 468, 471 Penal Code is prima facie made out.