PREM MOHAN GOVILA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case at hand presents one of the starkest example of misuse of human relationship one is likely to come across in a life time. The petitioner herein is a 76 years old pensioner retired from Railways, who has been dragged into a criminal litigation by none other than the respondent No.2, his own son, who has apparently joined hands with his wife to implicate the petitioner in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner herein, retired from service of Railways in the year 2000 and is residing alongwith his wife in his self-acquired house located at 9, Maan Mahal, Sher Vilas, Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur. The respondent No.2 Pankaj Agrawal is the only son of the petitioner and the complainant of the case at hand. The petitioner claims to have discharged all his parental duties towards the respondent No.2 and married him to Smt. Rama on 30.01.2001. It is asserted that right after the marriage of the respondent No.2 with Smt. Rama, his attitude towards his parents changed and the husband and wife started misbehaving with them. The petitioner claims that he and his wife tried to tolerate and put up with this ill behaviour considering the fact that the respondent No.2 is their only offspring. The respondent No.2 was in service of NIIT, Delhi. Soon after his marriage, he shifted to Delhi with his wife. It is asserted by the petitioner in this petition that whenever the respondent No.2 came down to Jodhpur with his wife, they used to misbehave and quarrel with the parents. Finally, the petitioner and his wife Asha were so disggusted with this misbehaviour that they were compelled to issue a public declaration/notice in the Rajasthan Patrika newspaper, Jodhpur Edition dated 17.03.2006 disowning all relations with Pankaj and Rama. Sometime after publication of this notice, the respondent No.2 and his wife approached the petitioners and expressed their unconditional apology in an attempt to patch up the relationship. The petitioner was lured into the trap laid by the respondent, which was nothing but a gimmick and a drama. The petitioner came to know of the vision ailment suffered by the respondent No.2 and thus, out of love, affection and sympathy for his only son, he condoned the misdeeds of Pankaj and gave him significant financial aid to the tune of Rs.44, 79, 494/- through banking transactions. It is claimed that the petitioner has paid a sum of nearly Rs.45 lacs to the respondent No.2 since 2006 so as to provide him financial assistance for meeting his medical and logistic needs. The petitioner claims that in the year 2013-2014, the respondent No.2 requested the petitioner to provide him financial aid to purchase a flat in a scheme of residential flats floated by the Delhi Development Authority expressing inability to buy the same on his own. Upon this, the petitioner sent three signed blank cheques bearing Nos.079760, 079761 and 079762 from his SBI savings account to the respondent No.2 through Registered AD post. After three months of receiving the cheques, the respondent No.2 apprised the petitioner that he could not be selected in the lottery draw held by the DDA and the three cheques sent by the petitioner had been cancelled. The petitioner bonafide believed this statement and did not take any further action in this behalf. Even thereafter, the petitioner claims to have continued providing financial assistance to the respondent No. However, to his utter shock and surprise, the petitioner received mobile messages from his bank, i.e. SBI, in the month of August 2016 notifying him that aforementioned three cheques had been presented and dishonoured. Cheque No.079760 was filled in for a sum of Rs.3 crores, the cheque No.079761 was filled in for a sum of Rs.10 lacs and the third cheque No.079762 was filled in for a sum of Rs.4 crores and were presented for encashment. The petitioner made enquiry from the bank and came to know that the cheque of 3 crores was presented by the respondent No.2 Pankaj herein, whereas the other two cheques were filled in and presented by his wife, namely, Smt. Rama Agrawal. The petitioner and his wife receive sums of Rs.30, 000/- and Rs.13, 000/- respectively as monthly pension. The petitioner further claims that he got a sum of Rs.60 to 70 lacs at the time of his retirement, of which major part was spent in providing financial aid to the respondent No. Immediately on coming to know about misuse of these three cheques, the petitioner lodged an FIR bearing No.259/2018 at Police Station Ratanada through a complaint submitted in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur. The petitioner and his wife were manhandled and beaten by the respondent No.2 and his wife, on which the petitioner filed a complaint against them at the Police Station Ratanada on 04.08.2016 under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC on 04.08.2016 and the police bound them down on the very same day. The anticipatory bail application filed by the respondent No.2 and his wife Smt. Rama in connection with FIR No.259/2016 lodged by the petitioner has reportedly been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. Smt. Rama filed a complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner herein alleging inter alia that she was ousted from the matrimonial premises on 15.07.2016 and her stridhan articles had misappropriated. The said application filed by Smt. Rama was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jodhpur on 07.10.2016 and the appeal filed against the said order too was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur on 13.10.2017. Smt. Rama also filed an FIR No.138/2016 against the petitioner and his wife for the offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur East, in which the police has given a negative final report after investigation. While submitting the negative final report, the Investigating Officer collected positive evidence to the effect that the petitioner had provided financial aid to the tune of Rs.40 to 42 lacs to his son Shri Pankaj and that the allegation of demand of dowry was totally false and fabricated. It is asserted in the petition that the respondent No.2 and his wife conspired together and misused three blank signed cheques sent to them by the petitioner in the year 2014 for purchasing a flat. The flat was never purchased and instead, the cheques were filled in fraudulently by Pankaj and hise wife for satiating their greed and to extort money from the petitioner. Unrealistic amounts to the tune of Rs.3 crores, 10 lacs and 4 crores were filled in the cheques and the same were presented for encashment in the bank. The petitioner was in no manner liable nor was he capable to pay these kinds of exorbitant sums of money, which the respondent No.2 and his wife intentionally and fraudulently filled in the dishonoured cheques. It is further mentioned that the entire endeavour of the respondent, while presenting the cheques was to harass the petitioner and to extort money from him. The petitioner has further alleged that foundation of the legally enforceable debt, which has been propounded in the complaint, is based on an aspersion that the petitioner and his wife executed a receipt, detailing therein the numbers of the cheques with the amounts and provided it to respondent No.2 Pankaj Agrawal. The petitioner has specifically denied having executed any such receipt. It is further mentioned at para No.19 of the miscellaneous petition that the cheques which were provided to the petitioner by the bank bear a printed instruction that the same would be valid only if presented for a sum of Rs.10 lacs or under. The petitioner has further raised an objection regarding nonservice of the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in his quest for seeking quashing of the proceedings of the impugned complaint.

(3.) Mr. Rajat Dave, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that ex facie the respondent acted in a malafide and fraudulent manner while presenting the disputed cheque after deceitfully filling in a fictitious and unrealistic sum of Rs. 3 crores and the other two cheques, which were filled in and presented by his wife for sums of Rs.10 lacs and Rs.4 crores respectively. He urges that the ground for receiving the cheques and the foundation of the so-called legally enforceable debt as set out in the complaint, which reads as below, is totally fictitious, created and conjectural :-