Suresh Kumar v. Ajit Singh Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCHAT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision No.792/2002 Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, R/o Plot No.115, SindhiColony, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1.Ajit Singh Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh Rajput, R/o A-21, Income Tax Colony, R/o Durgapura, Jaipur.2.The State of Rajasthan, through P.P.21, Income Tax Colony, R/o Durgapura, Jaipur.2.The State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondents _________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr.Yudhishtar RatnuFor Respondents : Mr.B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor _________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEJudgment 24/08/2017 1)On 14/03/1995 complainant Suresh Kumarsubmitted an ‘istgasa’ (complaint) in the court of AdditionalChief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur City to the effect thataccused-respondent No.1 Ajit Singh tendered a Cheque dated27/01/1995 for the sum of ₹90,000/- of SBI, Tonk Road,Jaipur in favour of complainant-petitioner Suresh Kumar,which on presentation in the Allahabad Bank, Jaipur on28/01/1995 got dishonoured on account of the account beingclosed. Complainant thereupon served a legal notice upon theaccused but when no heed was paid to the said notice,complainant submitted complaint in the court and the courtafter recording statements u/S.200 Cr.P.C. initiated thecomplaint proceedings. 2)The learned trial court framed the charge foroffence u/S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which hedenied and claimed trial. 3)In support of his complaint, complainant SureshKumar examined himself as PW1 and S.K. Sharma as PW2and got exhibited six documents. Statement of the accusedwas recorded u/S.313 Cr.P.C. and in rebuttal, the accusedexhibited six documents and got examined witness DilipKumar as DW1. 4)On 19/09/2001, the learned Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur City convicted the accusedunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act andsentenced him to 6 months RI with a fine of ₹1 lac. 5)Accused Ajit Singh challenged the order dated19/09/2001 by filing appeal in the court of learned court ofsessions, who committed the case to the court of learnedSpecial Judge (Fake Currency Notes) Cases, Jaipur City,Jaipur for hearing on the ground that after settlement he hasissued a blank cheque to the complainant in lieu of security,which was misused by the complainant. Hence, no case underthe Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against him. 6)The appeal filed by the accused was allowed on06/04/2002 by the appellate court and set-aside the order ofthe trial Court dated 19/09/2001 on the premise that there isno material on record either documentary or oral so as to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The entire dueamount was already paid to the complainant which itself hasbeen accepted by the complainant in documents Exh.D.1 &Exh.D.2. 7)Aggrieved by this order dated 06/04/2002, thecomplainant-petitioner filed this revision petition. 8)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andperused the record.perused the record. 6)The appeal filed by the accused was allowed on06/04/2002 by the appellate court and set-aside the order ofthe trial Court dated 19/09/2001 on the premise that there isno material on record either documentary or oral so as to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The entire dueamount was already paid to the complainant which itself hasbeen accepted by the complainant in documents Exh.D.1 &Exh.D.2. 7)Aggrieved by this order dated 06/04/2002, thecomplainant-petitioner filed this revision petition. 8)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andperused the record.perused the record. 9)In the present case, complainant PW1 SureshKumar has stated in his cross-examination that the amountstated in the Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2 was of his brother HarishKumar and said amount was not connected with disputedcheque Ex.P.1. But it is pertinent to mention herein that in hiscross-examination he has admitted that except for the saidamount of ₹90,000/-, there was no money dispute betweenhim and the accused. Furthermore, he has also admitted inhis cross-examination that on arising of dispute regarding saidmoney between him and the accused, the document Ex.D.2 wasscribed by his brother Harish Kumar on his behalf and at that timehe was also present and he did not oppose the same. But tocorroborate his abovesaid version, he has not examinedHarish Kumar. He further admitted that on Exh.D.2 from A-B,signatures were of his brother Harish Kumar. From theabovesaid statements it is revealed that Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2 werescribed in his presence and that the contents of the saiddocuments regarding his dues were in his knowledge. This fact is further corroborated from the statement of DW1 Dilip Singhwherein he has clearly stated that full and final settlement wasarrived at between the complainant and the accused. 10)In the light of the abovesaid discussion, the judgmentpassed by the learned appellate court does not suffer from anylegal infirmity. 11)Thus, this revision petition is dismissed. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J. Anil Goyal-PS/15