Ravi Ranjan Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Late Narendra Kumar, R/O E-1 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mantu Prajapati, aged about not known, son of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3849 of 2022 ------ Ravi Ranjan Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Late Narendra Kumar, R/O E-1, Kishore Enclave, Patel Nagar, P.O. Harmu, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mantu Prajapati, aged about not known, son of Suman Ram Prajapati, Proprietor of P.P. Enterprises, Resident of – Sandpura College Road, Ghatshila, P.O. + P.S. – Ghatshila, District – Singhbhum East, Jharkhand - 832303 … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anjani Nandan, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.126 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2021 by which the learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against all the accused persons of the case including the petitioner and the said case is now pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Ghatshila, District Singhbum East. 1 Cr. M.P. No.3849 of 2022 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant was issued with a cheque on behalf of an N.G.O. in the name and style of Lok Chetna Foundation. The cheque was signed by the co-accused Madhvi Kumari and Kusum Kumari with the full knowledge of the petitioner and others. The cheque was dishonoured. The demand notice was issued by the complainant. Amount was not paid. The complainant filed the Complaint Case No.126 of 2020 in the court of A.C.J.M., Ghatshila and the learned A.C.J.M., Ghatshila vide order dated 26.02.2021 has found prima facie case as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides punishment to a drawer of a cheque with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person out of that account for discharge of any debt or liability for dishonour of such cheque. It is next submitted that in this case it is the admitted case of the complainant that the petitioner was not the drawer of the said cheque rather Madhvi Kumari and Kusum Kumari were the drawer of the cheque. Even though it is not admitted, assuming for the sake of arguments that the petitioner is an employee of the N.G.O., there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner at the time of offence committed, was Incharge of and responsible to the N.G.O. for the conduct of the business of the N.G.O. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has knowledge of such cheque being issued by Madhvi Kumari and Kusum Kumari. Hence, it is submitted that even though the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 138 of the 2 Cr. M.P. No.3849 of 2022 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. It is lastly submitted that the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.126 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2021 which is now pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Ghatshila, District Singhbum East, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.126 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2021 which is now pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Ghatshila, District Singhbum East and submit that since an N.G.O. can be treated as a body corporate and the petitioner had knowledge about issue of the cheque so, the petitioner can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides for punishment of the drawer of the cheque, if the cheque issued by the drawer is dishonoured and the drawer of the cheque do not pay the amount within the stipulated time even after the demand of the cheque amount by the person in 3 Cr. M.P. No.3849 of 2022 whose favour the cheque was drawn. Since admittedly, the petitioner is not the drawer of the cheque so the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 simpliciter. 7. So far as Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is concerned, the same relates to the offences committed by the company and the explanations thereto says that the company means a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. It is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that the N.G.O. involved in this case is a body corporate nor is there any averment that the petitioner was Incharge of and was responsible to the affairs of N.G.O. for the conduct of the business of the N.G.O. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not made out against the petitioner, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.126 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2021 which is now pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Ghatshila, District Singhbum East, be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.126 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2021 which is now pending before the 4 Cr. M.P. No.3849 of 2022 learned A.C.J.M., Ghatshila, District Singhbum East, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 10.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st of June, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 5 Cr. M.P. No.3849 of 2022