HET RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 01-8-2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, the trial Court) in Criminal Complaint Case No.811/2004, whereby the trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioner and issued process. Aggrieved by the order impugned taking cognizance and issuing process, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and the material placed on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner advanced a loan of Rs.6 lac to the complainant/non-petitioner No.2 on 20-6-2001 and on the very day, at the time of financing the loan, a cheque of Rs. 8 lac was handed over to the petitioner though it was of a future date i.e. 20-1-2004. The cheque, on being presented to the bank, was dishonoured and, therefore, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act) were initiated against the non-petitioner No.2. Learned counsel submits that this complaint is to preempt the proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the non-petitioner No.2 under Section 138 of the Act . He has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. M/s. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltdrd. & ors., 2000 Cri.L.J. 174.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submit that the trial Court, on the basis of the material on record prima facie came to the conclusion that the receipt dated 20-6-2002 is a forged one an it is alleged to have been forged by the petitioner. The complainant, having come to know that the petitioner has forged the receipt as also misused the cheques which were signed by the non-petitioners No.2, immediately contacted the bank and got the order for stop payment and, therefore, according to learned counsel appearing for the complainant, the judgment relied on by counsel for the petitioner has no application on the facts and circumstances of the instant case.