It is noted that the petitioner is a School
Teacher and is not a illiterate person. It is also noted that the
petitioner did not take any steps to file a Criminal Complaint
against Respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act when the cheque issued by Respondent was
dishonoured. It, therefore, appears to me that the petitioner has
to recover the money.
adopted the criminal proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
In my opinion, considering the facts of the case, dispute
between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is purely of
civil nature and this complaint appears to be manipulated
complaint. The Complaint has been rightly dismissed by the trial
Court and Revision has also been rightly rejected by the Revisional
Court.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 566 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
Shri Yadavrao Lataru Sonewane, V Shri Bhojraj s/o Ramnath Barewar,
CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2014.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1093
The petitioner has filed a Criminal Complaint in the
4.
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondia, Court No. 5, vide
Criminal Complaint Case No. 441 of 2009. Respondent No. 1 is a
relative of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 was working as a
Branch Manager of Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank,
Goregoan. It is alleged in the complaint that Respondent No. 1 in
collusion with Respondent No. 2 took some signatures of the
petitioner on blank forms and obtained loan from the Bank.
However, the amount, in fact, was delivered to Respondent No. 1.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted that the
petitioner had agreed to give Rs. One lakh to Respondent No. 1
after obtaining loan from the Bank. However, after making
certain manipulations in the document, the loan amount was
increased to Rs.2,15,000/ and whole amount was taken away by
Respondent No. 1 with the assistance of Respondent No. 2.
5.
The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of
the complainant, has sent the complaint for inquiry and report
under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police
submitted the report that the petitioner had voluntarily given loan
amount to Respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the amount was
handed over to Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was unable
to pay the amount and, therefore, he had issued a cheque of
Rs.2,50,000/ to the petitioner. The said cheque was not honored
by the bankers of Respondent No. 1.
6.
The learned counsel submitted that the amount actually
agreed to be paid to Respondent No. 1 was Rs. One lakh and that
the manipulation was done by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to withdraw
the amount of Rs.2,15,000/.
7.
This does not appear to be correct from the police
inquiry and report. It is noted that the petitioner is a School
Teacher and is not a illiterate person. It is also noted that the
petitioner did not take any steps to file a Criminal Complaint
against Respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act when the cheque issued by Respondent was
dishonoured. It, therefore, appears to me that the petitioner has
6.
to recover the money.
adopted the criminal proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
In my opinion, considering the facts of the case, dispute
between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is purely of
civil nature and this complaint appears to be manipulated
complaint. The Complaint has been rightly dismissed by the trial
Court and Revision has also been rightly rejected by the Revisional
Court. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the petition. The
present Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule stands
discharged.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment