PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the present petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17-2-2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bhadra in F.R. No. 13/2006.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by one Niranjan Lal before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra on 6-1-2006 alleging that one Dinesh Kumar was running a shop of sweets at Sahwa Bus Stand. On 20-4-2005, the complainant and his other friends were taking breakfast in the said shop and at that time the complainant was not having cash in his hand, therefore, a cheque of Rs. 200/- was given to accused-Dinesh Kumar. It was further alleged that the complainant due to old relation with the shop keeper issued a cheque bearing No. 994725 without mentioning the date and could not write the amount in words upon the said cheque on account of being in hurry. It was further alleged that the accused by way of making conspiracy increased the amount of cheque to Rs. 2,22,000/- instead of Rs. 200/- and forged the cheque and submitted the same in the Bank for encashment. The accused never gave the money as debt but the accused persons gave threatening to the complainant that if he will not make the payment of cheque then they would finish him. The said complaint filed before the Magistrate was sent to the SHO, Bhadra under S.156(3), Cr. P.C. for investigation and was registered as FIR No. 14/2006 against the petitioners for offence under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police filed negative report (adm vaku). Thereafter, a notice was given to the complainant when final report was filed and before the Magistrate, the complainant requested to send the matter for re-investigation and on his request, the learned trial Court sent the matter for reinvestigation vide impugned order dated 17-2-2006.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order dated 17-2-2006 is totally abuse of process of the Court and the learned trial Court has committed an error while directing the Investigating Officer to reinvestigate the matter in a particular manner. Further, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court cannot pass any order, directing the investigating agency to investigate the matter in a particular manner as desired by the Court because Investigating Officer has his discretion and prerogative to investigate the matter as per his subjective satisfaction and the method to be adopted to investigate the matter is totally left with the discretion of the Investigation Officer. It is also contended that accused-petitioner Dinesh Kumar gave a notice under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the said notice was served upon the complainant non-petitioner No. 2 on 21-12-2005 and thereafter, he filed complaint before the learned trial Court on 9-1-2006 under S. 138 of N.I. Act meaning thereby only to save himself from the proceedings under S. 138, N.I. Act, this complaint was filed, therefore, the intention of the complainant goes to show that for taking defence, immediately after the service of the notice, the complainant filed the complaint even after lapse of 13 days from the date of service of notice and the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order failed to consider this aspect of the matter, directed the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the matter in a particular manner, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments in case of Kashi Ram v. State of Raj. reported in 1995 Cr LR (Raj) 86; Gajanand Gupta v. State, reported in 1999 Cr LR (Raj) 862; Sohan Singh v. State, reported in 1998 Cr LR (Raj) 332 and Mahipal Singh v. State, reported in 1998 Cr LR (Raj) 813 and prayed that the order impugned may be quashed and set aside.