@ MM Hiawégggg‘wga:rHHAwmgARw Bxmwusa wgg a 200.? l" IrM Lnxmi Chan-d 6mm! and o'rhzrs Vs. (—hjzxmnd Bur-ange and amfhar 0RDE§2 BF- PO-STED FOR PRQNG‘JNGEMENT CW {11/09/2009 Sd/- T.P. SHARMA / Judge N AEL HIQH COURT G? {iHHATTIsQARH ALT 3TLA5PUR W Laxmi Chant! Qnyai, aged 63 year's, 5/0 Lm'e Harcinand Rai Gayai, 2. Smtlndmwa'ri @oyal, aged 64 years, W/o Lnxmi Chand éoyui, 3. Mano} Chand Goyal, aged 24 years, S/o Laxmi Chand Goyai, 4. Kamiésh Goyali aged 38 years; Slo Loxmi Chand Goyai, A I! R10 R-2 ,. Vinaba Nugar‘ P.5.Tar=bahar, Biiaspur (£16.) Versus Eajcmand Bumnge, aged 45 yearsi 5io Shri Krishna 3umnge, Rio @vnari Hafe§ (Shivneri Howi), Near C.M.D.CaMege, Link Quad, P.3Tarbahar, Biiaspur (6.6.) VI h; 5mm of Chha'rtisgarh fhmugh Districf Magisfr'a‘re Biiaspur. (Petition under Section 482 of tha Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) ($3: Hon‘ble Mr. T}. shame, J.) Km‘ A Present: Shri Ravindm Agrawali counsel for The pefi?ionei~s. Shri Sunii Ofwuni, counsei for resuondenf No.1. Shri Rqjendm Tr-ipui‘hi, Panel iuwyer for respondeni N0.2/5*i’cx’re. 0mm:- (Deiivered an 1“ 5ep’rember‘, 236% 1. The. gefifioners have filed This pairi'rion under Section 4E2 9f fhe. Cede (if Crimindi Procedure, 193% {iii shorf ‘i‘he (:ede‘) fa!" quashmem' of we crimimi praceeding inifidfed on The bdsig of complaint made by resrgonden‘: Nal for the effence punishable under 5ea1'iens 4.1g and 46$ of the. Indian Penal Cade against mam. Petitianers RESPQNDENT§ 9mg @ ..2\~ 2. Qua§hmzm is chatlenged en fhe ground 14m? campiain? fSiad on behabf 01F resgandem' N91 is bar-red in terms of $ectinn 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code. 3. Brig? facfs iaading To. fiEing af This patifion are fhat Thai” gresent petitioner Mal had filed a. complaim’ against responden‘r Nc.1 for The affevma punEshabie undrar' .5zc'tian E38 cf Th6 Negs‘tiabie Instrumen‘ts Act 18m {in 5:!1ar"? ‘fhg Ad, 1881'} rglm’ing “:‘o cheque bgaring cheque Na.708»05? issuad by rasponden‘r Novl and same is pending bafom 'rhe Additinnai {Thief Judécial Mggiswmai BiMsgur, in Crimina! Casg Na.1329/2‘305. Przsran'r resgondem Maul has aiso filed criminal com'tiiaim against we, present pefifioners in connzcfion wi'rh iha effgncas punishable undzr $ec1'i9ns 193a 196, 197, 19$, 199, 200,. 209, 210, 211, 417, 418, 4é5, 467, 46.8, 469, 4'71 read wi‘rh Sadim 34 and 37 of flag lndicm Penal Cede and $zc+icm 11(f} and 11 (f) {f} of Tha Chhatiisgarh Money Lenders Am; 19.34 (in $hart “the. Act, 1934’) mim’ing m samé chegua bearing dazquz No.7QE‘5057. 4. Learned Jueiiciai Magisfram Fir-5T Class, Biiaspur- hag Taken cagnizance for The of‘Fance punishabie under $n3a‘riciris 1‘93” 19$, 199r ?’C3Qi 211, 41$; 46$ mad wi'rh filem'inn 34 9f Tha Indian Penai Cade and Sac-rim! 11$) and (ff) of fine. Act 1934 vide arder dated 7.12M)? which has; been chaiigngeti by fhg presen‘i 9a‘i‘ifioners bafare 'i‘he revi$ionai Ceur‘r ih Crimimi Ravisism No‘66/07. Ordgr- was medified by The Sgaciai Judge {Airmity} and Addifiomt $ession5 Judgea, Biiusgur in its nrdgr damd 22.8.2007 and ardar Taking cognizance 9f the. Qffancas punishabie. under secfions 418 and 468 of the Indian Pena! Code haw been maintained agains‘r flue present petitioners. 5. I have heard $hri §hm Qavindra Agrawai. coinage! far- fhe peiitieners, 5PM Sunil (Diwani, counse! far responden? No.1 and $hri Rajendra Tripa‘ihi, Pane! lamyer far- resgonden‘r No.2/Sta1’e and perused ihe Lid l GV’I‘P?!’ . .a . i ”EL“.laf!8..d QNA ,w. Q h . 8 E' d0'!.J I"“g“.kS ! llgd 9H behQH G “a ’ petitioners. FE, @ {x Lam‘nad munsei far The. pe’ri‘rionem veiaemem‘Hy argmd fhm' presan? > aemplaim xms: fiiad by mmphinmtfr‘asgondem N04. agrxinsW fha paifiongrs in which he. has ailagzd, fhair ‘Hng presgn‘r pmi‘rionars havg scmmi'rrad cheating aw forgery vala‘ring m chegue fihgd criminai camplain‘t cmd criminm camplaim N0.1829/05 was fiigd by prawn? v gw peTi-rianar N01 agahnsf the resuondan‘t No.1, fharefore, befm‘e any 1‘ dgcismn a? fks‘f criminai casz, order taking cagnizance on 'the basis‘of same dacumanf which Es $Llbjz¢f rgm‘t‘mr of firs? criminal aasa‘ is bad in law and mminutmce 9f any procgeding :m ‘thg basis of such cemplainf wauM be abusa 0f praczss of 1he. Court Learnad munsg! fur‘mer argued fhai bar under Sac'tim 195 {1) (b) (ii) z‘f the. Ceda is created. in taking mgnEzanm 0f The matter- cavered undar‘ fhg afaresaid ray/Mom Learned k counsa! pmced raQianag: in the Mfter- 9f M.R$‘!§ & Qrs. \L Eégmalal Chew§ar1 in wmch fhc High Ceur‘r of Madras has haid fhaf subsaqaenf complain? fiiad by the. accused rziming 11: smug sheque which is wMm‘t mgz’rrer 9f first compiaim‘ i$ n91- mainmimble because, the Caur'!‘ concarmd have m maka mpm‘r of £91m affar' remr‘ding finding as such white disnbsim of case for dighamur‘ of chaqua. Lam-net! munsa! furihsar f J piaced reiicmcg in The. matrfar of Ashak Qhcmirvadi & Qrs‘ vi $him! H.Chamhani &: Anna irs which fha Apex Ccur? has hgid that in fhz ubsgnm of prism fade casa against firm nccu§ed persamn gampiaim is ‘ iiabie m be quaghed. Lem-vied aeunsel ulsg placed reiiancz in The. mcwmr 3f $5.5.Ah9awa? v. 5mm ef Hcrfam and» Amma‘g in which The Apax Cam? has halal mm making campiainf in fer-ms of $aafion 195 (if Ting Coda are mandamry and m (Rug-“r has juriséimim “to Take cognizance 9f any sf“ The. offences men‘iioneri tharein uniass mere is a cnmpiaim in wri-ring as rgquir‘ed under fhqt seatinn. i On 14w n‘iher' hand’ lanmzd counsie! for respandani' N01 opgasad The pe‘iii'itm and argued ‘i’hm maugh disgutgd cheque is om and the same in bath casas bui on *Hne basi$ cif said chegue, prasem (natifionar Nail has 12006 Cri.L.3,1059 2i998 EAR (Grimm!) 607 5Im~nnx 1 or.” 'r!!> . \éVUU) 1 ORA; LIC ._4-’ fiied a camglaim far the offence punishaLwie under 5ae1ion 138 a"? fha Aat 18.81 agains? reSpondznf Mo‘l and. msgandam No.1 ham fiiad Q complaint againsi fha peiifignzm far ccmmissicn of offange, of ahea‘i’ing and fargery along wifh other affanccas am! has made. al!egcrl'icn firm? documanf has been fm-ged and affenca has bean commif‘red prior f9 {Hing 9f fha same bg‘fur-a 1‘he (hurt. t‘her‘efar'e‘. aampktinf filed on behalf 0f raspondeni Maxi againS't 1kg peViTiamrs és mainminnbia. 335 the Cauwr came. inm condusion Thai forgery and chgairing has been commi‘t‘ted rdu’ring ’ra We afnresaid chzque, the Caurf befm'e a aomglain? fer +he effence: filgd cm behalf 9f petitioner- NQJ. womd not be in a goshim h) convicf presem respondent Mal umler 5ecfion 138 of “ma Acct 1881; ‘therefore, befom passing any judgmen? an ‘Hna basis 0f such cheque, genuinene5s of 'rhe cheque is required m asczrmin. warned comma! waged. rdiancg in fhe mamr of 5gghi¢a &gnd §ingh gnd Aaathgr v. Stc?e gf Eéhar and Arse?§zer4 ir: which ‘rhrge judges Bench 9f the Apex Court has observed fha? bar- Lmder- Sec?icm 1§§5(1) (b) (ii) 9f fhz Code of mking cognizancz of offence. dascMbed in Section 463 er pmishable undar Semians 4?.11 47'5, 476 cf the, Indian Penal Coda cemmi‘rtzd in respew of a dnmmen? ,nreducad m‘ given in avidenm in a gmmzuedirig in a (Jauri' wcutd rm? wtmc‘r if affence. aiieged was cammifted bafQra groducfion of dowmgnf beforg ‘rhe (Jaw-1’. Pmsem' pei‘i‘rianer N01 hag fieM a mmphim undat- $edign 138 ef flag Aer; 1881. againg responder}? N01. befam the Addificma! Chief gudicia‘ MagisWafa, Bilagpur and prasan? respondent Nml has fiied a. compkxim far the offenca {gunishabk under 5ec+ians 19.3., win 197, 198, 19.9, 20C), 209,. 210,. 213,. 41K 4i$€ 4155i 4¢€~I 46:3,, 469, 473,. read WM! Segfion 34 and 37 of "me. Indian Penal Code and $ec‘rian 11$) and (ff) of fhe Act 1934 bafar'e fha Chiaf Judicial Magistrate, Biiaspur an fine basis of digmn‘aci chequa bearing cheque- No.7080§7'. Prasant pafi‘rionar- Mai ha$ aligggd in his comgiaint tim? ahequa hm: baem axecuiezci and i3£uad by respondem No.1 far dischrgz ef his iiabiiiiy and prawn? resgandeni ‘(1998‘1 2 scc 493 $§ %’\t m z é " Nail. km atiagad in hm campigim that Wye. pz?i'rimar§ hm? aommiimd £h¢§x+in§ and fargexry reicx‘rér‘g To ‘irhe saié shaque.__ If Cr§minai (30w? mrrivaci m a finding mm: ¢haggua has been exacumd and 5:5suad fair discharge. a? hi$ Habimy, 'than mbsequemiy sauna Cnur’r M eguai 5mm$ wauld m+ ha. (:cmpemn‘r ’ro mkrg- c‘ifferm‘? vim: of fwger‘y and chm?ing rzia‘l'Eng 'm saw} cheque vice-warm. If the aiiegad documam’ Le. aheque. is faund forged and affence. of shaming has: been commifmd ralming to said. (zhequaf Then if wouid no‘hbe gossibk by The Cour? of same smms to dzdare The chequa genuine and execuired and issued far di$chargg uf ‘iabiHi‘y‘ . 9‘ While deaiing wh’h fhe ques‘tinn of cram-Mn 0f bar undgr' $gdion .195 (1) (b) (ii) of we. Code in ”rhea mmer of 5w??? Sing?! QM gmea v. Eathir Singha, fhe Apex Caur‘? heid ‘H'mt bar- is cremd far faking cagnizanca on 14m basis n‘f camphim made by c1 [gr-Woke par-ix 1.0.Whilg deding wifh fhe same quesfian, in i‘he maTtgr nf M.$’Ahigwzzt (mgm); The Apex Courir has he'd ‘rha xzme vizw. 11. CmfHcfina judgment rendered in *he. mrm‘zw (Jf $§§r§w and 5gcm¢g (shipm) were. placed bafwe five judgas Consti-hrrian Bemh for in‘rerprgi‘wivn of $ac1'i9n 1951 {1) (b) {ii} 0f The 6mm In 14W mmim- a?“ Eqba! Singh i‘awg" and aae‘rkar v. #tasmkshE Aawmsh am am‘mer‘ fivz judges Ccnsfim‘tion Bench of fhe Apex (buy-t has uppravad fha km dzclared in Tha mm'mr 9f §agh§dg f‘sggm): Pam 33. n-f fha mcmgr 0f lgba! (swam) wads as undam- “33. In viaw a‘f ‘rhe dis‘mssion madg above, we are 0f The aginion fha'r Sachinda Nand‘ Singh has been eorrec+iy decidecf and me View mken fherein is the cam‘eci‘Vi'ew. 5ec'i'i0n 195 (i) (b) {ii) CrPC weuid be aHmcted only when we effences enumerated in fhe said provision have been commiffed wifh respeci‘ To a discumen'f affer- ii' has hee‘n rjimiiueeei cr- §iveva iii evideiaae iii a preceeding in any sour-1' Le. during the Time when The decumen? was in cusfod'ia leg/"s. Pé~ In we light 0f 5w; lair! ciewn by 'Hqz Can§1i&y?im Eamh 9f the. Apex Caur‘r in the, mmfrar of Iqbal (sugm) if has bean held fhm- cemplnim hy a privcwe par-in; reiu‘r'mg to farggry of 1M dmumanf prim‘ m producing bzfm-a the Caur‘r is maintainabla: and hm- undem 5ecfim1 195 (1) {m (ii) 0f The Code. i$ no? a‘m‘acfad fm' faking cagnizanm. 12.Lg\amed Judicial Magisfm’re First Class, Bilaspur has Taken cagnizance on fhe bn£is of complaint and order taking cognizancz was mud§fied by fha revi£ionai Court As held by ‘iha Apex Court in Th2 mnTfe-r of Eqba! (saggml 'fhe ravi$imnl Cour? has no? cammif‘md any i§iggwi~§y and cognizance Taken by Th2 trial Ceurf fer 'lrhe offence punishable under $ac'rion 4.18 and 4&8 Qf *he’ Indian Pena! Cgde is $usfainqb!a under the lam/V i do n01: find, any scape far- inferfarance in exgmise 9f pgwer- under $ec1'ion 482 0f The Coda, i3.ConsequenTly, The. pe'fi'tiahn hag n9 farce, same. is Habia fa ha dismissed 0nd is haraby dismissed However, 1'0 avoid any caniraver-a m“ fu‘mm mmpiica'rien cr differenca of finding/view mia’i’ing 1‘0 same dacumznt fhe Chiaf Judiaia! Magisfmfe, Bilaspur is direaied m meal! bah the complaints aasa panding in differeni' Cotirw and. aifher dacide. itsglf or transfer To one Courf and suah Cauri $haii Try and dzacide. bath i'ha compiaim‘s simiiimneausiy. A copy of This arder bg sen? 1m ‘rhe Chief Juéicial Magistratz Biiaspur and batik the. Caur‘w consemeé. 3/-