✦ High Court of India · 22 May 2006

CH A L, TA L Cr sc. ca .3 Sarafat Ansar i v. Sarafat Ansari u/ s 384

Case Details High Court of India · 22 May 2006
Court
High Court of India
Decided
22 May 2006
Length
1,151 words

Acts & Sections

Sri Raj endra Singh, learned counsel for t he applicant . Sri Am it Bhat t learned A.G.A. for t he St at e H o n ’ b l e J. C. S. Ra w a t , J. This pet it ion u/ s 482 Cr.P.C. has been direct ed t o quash t he ent ire Crim inal proceedings of Crim inal Com plaint Case No. 162 of 2006, I kram Ahm ad Vs. Sarafat Ansari u/ s 384, 406 and 420 I .P.C. pending before t he court of 1 st Addit ional Civ il Judge ( J.D.) , Roor k ee, Dist r ict Har idwar and also t he sum m oning order dat ed 04.04.2006. Brief fact s for t he disposal of t his pet it ion are t hat t he applicant had filed a com plaint against t he respondent No.3 on 22.02.2006 u/ s 138 N.I .Act alleging t herein t hat t he respondent No. 3 had given him cheques which were dishonoured. Thereaft er, t he learned Magist rat e passed t he order dat ed 22.02.2006 by which t he respondent No. 3 was sum m oned for t he offence u/ s 138 N.I .Act . I t is also alleged in t he pet it ion t hat as a count er blast , t he respondent No. 3 filed a com plaint u/ s 384, 406 and 420 I .P.C. against t he applicant on

04.03.2006 w it h t he allegat ion t hat t he opposit e part y No. 3 was a m em ber of t he Com m it t ee of Rs. 5000/ - pm . St art ed from 01.04.2004 and in t he m ont h of Novem ber, 2004, t he opposit e part y No. 3 had t aken t he m oney of t he com m it t ee of Rs. 95,000/ - which was paid by t he applicant t o t he opposit e par t y No. 3 in inst alm ent s by cheques and as a securit y he has t aken t he cheques from t he opposit e part y No. 3 ret urnable aft er closing t he inslt alm ent s. The opposit e part y No. 3 paid all t he inst alm ent s. I t is also st at ed t hat t he opposit e part y No. 3 has also st at ed anot her com m it t ee of Rs. 5,000/ - pm w it h t he applicant on 01.05. 2005 and he paid 13 inst alm ent s of t ot al Rs. 65,000/ - t o t he applicant . I t is also alleged t hat t he applicant becam e dishonest and t hreat ened t o m isuse t he cheque m isappropr iat ion of m oney . Thereaft er, t he opposit e part y No. 3 m ade a com plaint against t he applicant u/ s 384, 406 and 420 I .P.C. St at em ent of t he opposit e part y No. 3 was recorded u/ s 200 Cr.P.C. and as a w it ness st at em ent s of Jam shed- PW1 and I rfan- PW2 w ere recorded u/ s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Thereaft er, t he learned Magist r at e passed t he sum m oning order of cognizance dat ed 04.04.2006 whereby t he applicant was sum m oned u/ s 406 I .P.C. Feeling aggr ieved by t he said order, t he present pet it ion has been preferred. Heard learned counsel for t he part ies and perused t he record. I t is cont ended by t he learned counsel for t he applicant t hat t he opposit e part y No. 3 has filed t his com plaint t he m alafide int ent ion and ult er ior m ot ive for harassing t he applicant by concealing t he m at erial fact s in t he com plaint by m isleading t he t r ial court and he has filed t he cr im inal com plaint against t he applicant as a count er blast of his case filed pr ior t o t his for t he offence u/ s 138 N.I .Act by preparing false and fabr icat ed prosecut ion st or y. I t was furt her cont ended t hat t he applicant had not com m it t ed any offence and as such, t he com plaint is bad. Lear ned A.G.A. refut ed t he cont ent ion. I t is set t led pr inciple of law, if t he com plaint discloses offence and t here is legal ev idence in support of t he com plaint , t he court has no j urisdict ion t o ent ert ain t he pet it ion u/ s 482 Cr.P.C. I n t he present pet it ion, it is very m uch in t he evidence t hat t he applicant has not given t he m oney which was ent rust ed t o him by t he opposit e part y No. 3. The applicant had also filed t he copy of t he st at em ent recorded u/ s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. which reveals t hat t here is prim a- facie case against t he applicant . I t cannot be said t hat it is t he count er blast by t he opposit e part y No. 3. I n v iew of t he for going discussion, t he pet it ion devoids of m er it is liable t o be dism issed and is dism issed accor dingly . 22 nd May, 2006 Shiv ( J. C. S. Ra w a t , J.)

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments