ANGREJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the accused petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur in revision affirming the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned ACJM, Sri Karanpur in Criminal Case No. 06/2008 whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners accused for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the respondent No. 2 complainant Shri Harbhajan Singh submitted a complaint in the court of learned ACJM, Sri Karanpur alleging inter alia that he was having an Adhat with the petitioner's firm named 'Barar Traders'. The complainant, by way of the Adhat transactions, allegedly used to draw cash from firm and also sold his agricultural products through the firm in lieu thereof. The accounts of the parties were settled in the month of January, 2007 and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- became due against the complainant who allegedly gave a cheque No. 67677 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to Angrej Singh for squaring off the amount. The complainant alleged that the accused petitioners, interpolated the cheque by forging and inserted the numeral '1' before the numerals '15000'. Thereby, the cheque amount was fraudulently changed from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 1,15,000/- and the same was presented in the bank and was got dishonoured. The petitioners gave a notice under section 138 of the N.I. Act to the complainant mentioned therein regarding the cheque amount was Rs. 1,15,000/- whereupon, the complainant came to know of this entire fraud and forgery. The complaint so submitted by Harbhajan Singh was forwarded to the Police Station Sri Karanpur for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 where, an FIR No. 212/2007 was registered for the offences under Section 418, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and investigation commenced. The investigating officer, conducted thorough investigation and submitted a negative final report finding the case of the first informant to be false and also requested the court to proceed against Harbhajan Singh under Section 182/211 IPC. The complainant, submitted a protest petition against the negative final report and got recorded statements of his own and of two witnesses Gurpreet Singh and Kewal Singh under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 where after, the trial court passed the order dated 19.09.2017 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences mentioned above. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the said order by filing a revision which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur on 15.07.2016. Being aggrieved of these two orders, the accused petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973

(3.) Shri Sandhu, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that the orders under challenge are perse bad in the eye of law and should be quashed and set aside. He urged that it is an admitted case of the complainant that he was having an Adhat account with the petitioner's firm through which, he used to trade his agricultural produce. He urged that the dues of the complainant towards the firm accumulated to a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- and to clear the same off, the complainant voluntarily and under his own signatures and writing gave the disputed cheque for the said amount to the accused Angrej Singh who presented it in his bank for collection. The cheque was dishonoured on ground of insufficiency of funds where after, a notice under section 138 of the N.I. Act was issued to the complainant and his prosecution was initiated in the court concerned for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. He urged that the said prosecution has reached to the final stage and the statement of the accused is to be recorded. Shri Sandhu contended that the complainant wrote the amount on the cheque in numerals i.e. Rs. 1,15,000/- as well as the words in his own handwriting and gave the same to the accused. As some error occurred while filling the cheque where the amount was written in words, the complainant himself ratified the mistake by appending his signatures thereupon. He contended that this act of the complainant in appending his signatures on the disputed cheque over the words between which the mistake occurred makes it amply clear that knowingly, consciously and with full understanding of the implications, Harbhajan Singh gave the disputed cheque to the accused Angrej Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-. Later on, he developed a fraudulent intention and launched a totally false and fabricated prosecution against the petitioners which was found so by the police after thorough investigation. With these submissions, Shri Sandhu craved acceptance of the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 and implored the Court to quash the impugned orders as being grossly illegal and amounting to an abuse of process of law.