1 Cri.Appl.No.1586 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1586 OF 2010 Vijay Gambhir Bari, Age-41 years, Occu-Insurance Agent, R/o.Sharda Colony, Amalner, Tal.Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Ravindra Hariom Brahme, Age-35 years, Occu-Service/Manager, Purnavad Nagari Sahakati Patsanstha, Shirsoli, Jalgaon, Branch Amalner, R/o.Deshmukh Arunai Sankul, Opp.New Civil Court, Tal.Amalner, Dist Jalgaon. 2. Kalpana Shekhar Lanke, Age-36 years, Occu-Service/Chief Manager, Purnavad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Shirsoli, R/o.Unity Chambers, Ganesh Colony Road, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Satyasheel Avinash Akole, Age-52 years, Occu-Advocate/ Chairman, Purnavad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Shirsoli, R/o.Purnavad Nagar, Purnavad Bhawan, Ring Road, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 4. Jagatrao (Appa) Barku Patil, Age-50 years, Occu-Business/Vice Chairman, Purnavad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Shirsoli, R/o.At Post Shirsoli, Tal. And Dist. Jalgaon 5. Ashok Ganpati Reverkar, Age-51 years, Occu-Service/Secretary, Purnavad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Shirsoli, R/o.Waghulde Nagar, Jalgaon, Tq. And Dist. Jalgaon 2 Cri.Appl.No.1586 of 2010 6. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Mr.Girish Rane, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.V.D.Rakh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.Sandesh R. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.4 Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondents no.2,3 and 5. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 02/05/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present application u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant/original complainant in RCC No.336/2008 is before this Court, to question the correctness of the order passed in Cri.Rev. Appl. No.37/2009, by which the Revisional Court has quashed and set aside the order of issuance of process for the offence punishable u/s. 420 r/w. 34 of The IPC, passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Amalner, in the complaint filed by the original complainant. 2. It is urged across the bar on behalf of the applicant/original complainant that the applicant is an Insurance Agent. On 10/04/2007, he had approached respondent no.1 herein, who was serving as a Manager with Purnavad Nagari Sah.Patsanstha, Shirsoli, Jalgaon, Branch at Amalner, with a request for issuance of demand draft of Rs.25,000/- It is alleged that he has also paid the requisite commission for the issuance of demand draft of Rs.25,000/- Accordingly, the demand draft was issued to him by the first respondent. He has collected that demand draft against the insurance policy, to be deposited on behalf of his client. When the 3 Cri.Appl.No.1586 of 2010 demand draft was deposited with the State Bank of Life Insuance Company, on behalf of the insurer, it was returned back. It appears that the demand draft was shown in the Bank of Maharashtra. It is alleged that accordingly it was intimated by the complainant to the first respondent. It is further stated that the demand notice was issued on 08/06/2007, to which false reply was given on behalf of Purnavad Nagari Sah. Patsanstha, and they denied to repay the amount, which was accepted by them towards the issuance of demand draft, hence the complaint was lodged with the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jalgaon. In view of this complaint lodged in the police station, the complainant was directed to lodge the complaint u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act and declined to take the cognizance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, hence the complaint was lodged before learned J.M.F.C. Amalner on 30/12/2008, on which the order of issuance of process for the offence punishable u/s. 420 r/w. 34 of The IPC was passed by the learned Magistrate. The order of issuance of process was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner in Cri.W.P. No.37/2009 by the respondent no.2 and 3. By way of reasoned order dated 12/01/2010, the Revisional Court allowed the said revision and set aside the order of issuance of process not only against the applicant to the revision application, but against all the persons, who were arrayed as an accused in the complaint. 3. It is urged across the bar that the Revisional Court has committed an error in allowing the revision application against the 4 Cri.Appl.No.1586 of 2010 persons, who have not approached the Revisional Court, questioning the correctness of issuance of process. It is also urged that since beginning, there is intention to cheat, by the office bearers of the Institution Purnavad Nagari Sah.Patsanstha, Shirsholi, Jalgaon, Branch at Amalner.. It is further urged that with intention to deceive the complainant, wrong instrument was issued by the said institution, which was not honoured when presented with the bankers. It is further urged that the false reply was given on behalf of respondents to the legal notice issued by the applicant and was not properly considered by the Revisional Court and lastly it is urged that the statement find in para no.7 of the order in revision that, “the respondent no.1 has received the sum of Rs.25,000/- and commission amount, even prior to filing of the complaint”, is an incorrect statement. 4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. so also learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 5 support the order passed by the Revisional Court. 5. In the light of these submissions, perused the averments in the complaint, so also the text of the impugned judgment in the revision passed by the Revisional Court. At the outset, this Court has to take a note of the fact that the complainant is an Insurance agent and not a layman. The entire complaint is totally silent on the point that when the complainant demanded the demand draft, the cheque was issued to him by the Institution Purnavad Nagari Sah.Patsanstha, 5 Cri.Appl.No.1586 of 2010 Shirsoli, for which he had protested and inspite of his objection/protest, the cheque was foisted on him by the respondents. In absence of such averments in the complaint, it can not be inferred, as urged by the learned counsel for complainant that since beginning, there is an intention to cheat the complainant at the hands of these respondents and it is correctly observed by the Court of Revision. Second aspect, even though it is averred in the complaint that when the instrument was deposited in the bank, it was dishonoured. It is pertinent to note that why the instrument was dishonoured, whether for insufficient funds or for any other reasons, the complaint is totally silent. On the contrary, this memo was tendered before the Court of Revision and the Court of Revision in para no.6, specially observed that the instrument was dishonoured with the memo, “Effect not cleared. Please present again”, and not dishonoured for insufficient funds. Thus the fact is clear that there was no intention to cheat the applicant by the respondents. Lastly and most importantly, it is urged before this Court that false reply was given to the legal notice issued by the complainant at the hands of the respondents. As it is specifically observed by the Court of revision that in the reply to the legal notice issued by the applicant, the Manager of respondents no. 2 to 5 have given reply on 06/06/2007 and shown their willingness to repay the amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith the amount of commission. The entire complaint is silent on this point and it is nowhere averred in the complaint that inspite of this reply received from the respondents, applicant deposited the bounced draft/cheque again 6 Cri.Appl.No.1586 of 2010 alongwith the memo of the bank and even then the respondents refused to repay the amount claimed. All these aspects are considered by the Court of Revision at its proper perspective. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment of the Court of Revision, I do not find any error in respect of interpretation of legal requirement. Lastly, the statement of the counsel for respondent no.1 that the complainant had already received the amount, is an incorrect statement, and it can not be accepted as the practicing lawyers are the officers of the Court and the Courts are always under the impression that with all respects they are making statement before the Court and if some allegation is made against the officer of the Court, such practice required to be deprecated. These observations are taken in this order at the request of learned counsel for applicant, by the way there shall not be any complaint against him, if the complainant may take this matter to the Apex Court. 6. For the reasons recorded by the Court of Revision, while setting aside the order of issuance of process, passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court do not find any perversity in the order impugned. In substance, application sans any merit, rejected with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAY 2011/cri.appl.1586-10