9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e plea of the petitioners that this case is more by way of a grievance over the lodgement of the cheque issued by respondent no. 5 at the time of availing the financial assistance. The said cheque stood dishonoured on presentation in want of sufficient fund and apparently the respondent no. 5 while premediating a legal action and filing of a complaint case against him for the alleged dishonour of cheque brought the present complaint and got it referred to Amas Police Station by the learned A.C.J.M., Sherghati. This Court finds from the order passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Sherghati that he has simply acted as a post office in a routine and mechanical manner by forwarding the complaint petition to the police station for institution of FIR and investigation - There was no statement in the complaint petition that the steps required to be taken under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. was complied with by the informant. This Court would also observe that the learned A.C.J.M., Sherghati has recorded the order on the body of the petition itself which cannot be said to be a healthy practice. Apart from the aforesaid fact that no statement was made in the complaint petition that there was a com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the laws of Germany. Allegations : The Respondent No. 5 Menahaj Khan is dealing in purchase and sale of the vehicles. He lodged a complaint case in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati giving rise to Complaint Case No. 134 of 2017. The learned Magistrate exercised his power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and forwarded the complaint petition to the Station House Officer, Amas PS for institution and investigation. The order passed by learned A.C.J.M., Sherghati on 25.07.2017 forwarded a copy to S.H.O., Amas PS is written at the top of the complaint petition. In his complaint, the respondent no. 5 alleged that he along with his brother in course of his business purchased altogether 11 vehicles, the registration numbers of the vehicles are stated in Paragraph 2 of the complaint petition. He admits that the financial assistance for purchase of vehicles were provided by accused no. 1-petitioner no. 1 Company. According to him accused nos. 2 and 3 who are the Managing Director and Whole Time Director respectively of petitioner no. 1 and are posted at Chennai whereas accused no. 4 is the Local Manager of petitioner no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is stated that there is a dispute between the parties which are related to defects in the goods and deficiency in service and those are pending in the respective courts, in the meantime on 08.02.2017 the complainant received a message on his mobile from the State Bank, Sherghati Branch saying that a cheque of ₹ 1,14,49,804/- being Cheque No. 456214 issued by him stood dishonored due to insufficient fund. The complainant claims that he had never issued a cheque of the said amount. He came to know that the said cheque was lodged by the accused no. 1. The complainant alleged when he had not issued a cheque for the said amount there was no question of bouncing the cheque for insufficient fund. He further alleges that at the time of purchase of vehicles he had signed on many blank cheques and blank papers and the cheque lodged by accused no. 1 was one of those cheques which were lodged by the accused persons without any information and without consent of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant had sent a legal notice against the attempt taken by the accused persons to illegally withdraw the money and has demanded compensation. The complainant claims that whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appointment of receiver with respect to the hypothecated vehicles. Thereafter, the brother of respondent no. 5 filed a complaint case before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and a Complaint Case No. 611 of 2016 as mentioned above. Learned counsel further submits that in Complaint Case No. 611 of 2016 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance but while issuing summons did not think it just and proper to issue summons against the Managing Director of the petitioner no. 1 Company. It is submitted that now the respondent no. 5 has lodged the FIR raising in fact his grievance arising out of the lodgement of the blank cheque which has been dishonored. The respondent no. 5 has, however, admitted in his complaint petition/FIR that at the time of taking loan he had signed certain blank cheques and it had given to the Company. Learned counsel has relied upon various judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court on the subject involving the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 learned counsel submits that in the case of Loonkaran Sethia v. Ivan E. John reported in AIR 1977 SC 366, Subba Reddy v. Neelapareddi reported in AIR 1966 SC 267, Ratta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. It is submitted that on a bare reading of the entire complaint petition without adding or subtracting anything out of it, it can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. In fact, the manufacturing company has not even been made accused in this case but one of the officers has been made accused without describing any role of the said officer. The matters relating to defect in the goods and deficiency in service are admittedly pending consideration before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission where respondent no. 5 had claimed a compensation of ₹ 80,00,000/- (Eighty Lakhs) with interest. About the alleged threat given to respondent no. 5 over telephone again a complaint case is pending at Sherghati which is not under challenge in the present case. To this Court, therefore, no difficulty in accepting the plea of the petitioners that this case is more by way of a grievance over the lodgement of the cheque issued by respondent no. 5 at the time of availing the financial assistance. The said cheque stood dishonoured on presentation in want of sufficient fund and apparently the respondent no. 5 while premediating a legal action and filing of a complaint case against him for the alleged dishonour of cheque brought the present complaint and got it referred to Amas Police Station by the learned A.C.J.M., Sherghati. This Court finds from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
