Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2830 of 2019 Revisionist :- Anuj Kumar Srivastava And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Puneet Bhadauria Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 3831 of 2017 (Anuj Kumar Srivastava and another Versus Shyam Ji Swarnkar), P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, whereby the complaint filed by the revisionists has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P.C.
2. Perusal of the record shows that revisionists have filed the above mentioned complaint against the opposite party No.2 alleging therein that opposite party No.2 is goldsmith by profession and in the month of September, 2011, revisionist No.2 Neetu Srivastava has purchased jewelery of Rs. 60,000/- from opposite party No. 2 and she has given three cheques of Rs. 20,000/- each to the opposite party No.2 as consideration amount of the same. The revisionists/ complainant got 'stopped' payment of said cheques from the bank, however, these cheques were not returned back to the complainant and the opposite party No.2 threatened that he would extort Rs. 10 lacs from them. The complainant/ revisionist No. 1 was examined under Sections 200 Cr. P.C. and in inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, statement of revisionist No.2 was recorded as PW-1. After hearing, the complaint of revisionists was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Allahabad vide order dated 04.07.2019 which is being impugned in the present criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that there were specific averments in the complaint filed against the opposite party No.2 and same were supported by the revisionist No.1 in statement under section 200 Cr.
P.C. and that learned court below has illegally held that the aforesaid complaint is perverse and against the law and therefore not sustainable in the eye of law. The finding of court below that the complaint was filed by the revisionists as a counter blast to the case filed by the opposite party No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the revisionists, is also not sustainable.
It was further submitted that opposite party No.2 has committed forgery in the alleged cheques and prima facie case of cheating and forgery is made out and thus trial court committed error in dismissing the complaint under section 203 Cr. P.C. It was further argued that at the stage of summoning, the defence version cannot be looked into and merely it is to be seen that whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the proposed accused or not. It was submitted that from the averments made in the complaint, it is established that opposite party No.2 committed fraud and forgery as amount of cheques of Rs. 20,000/- was converted into cheque of Rs. 2,20,000/- by way of forgery. It has been submitted that impugned order is against the facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. In support of his case, Learned counsel for the revisionists has referred case of Umrao Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 Law Suit (All) 171.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and that the complaint was filed by the revisionists as a counter blast to the case lodged by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 138 N.I. Act in respect of dishonour of three cheques issued by the revisionist No.1
5. The provisions of section 203 Cr.P.C. make it clear that if, after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the Complainant and the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint. At that stage what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The function of the Magistrate holding the preliminary inquiry is only to be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused on the materials placed before him by the complainant. It is well settled that before issuance of summons, the Magistrate should be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint but that satisfaction is to be arrived at by the inquiry conducted by him as contemplated u/s 202. The object of the provisions of section 202 crpc is to enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether process should be issued or not. In case of Umrao Singh Vs. State of U.P. (supra), relied by learned counsel, after considering various pronouncements of Apex Court, it was held as under:
''From the aforesaid decisions, the position of law regarding scope of inquiry at the stage of summoning, is conspicuously well settled that at that stage only disclosure of a prima facie case has to be looked into and nothing more. At this stage, Magistrate is not required to conduct a roving enquiry into various facets and disputed question of facts to fathom out a defence for the accused yet to be tried and scuttle the prosecution at it's very inception. Whether the witnesses are reliable or not, whether the prosecution allegations are reliable or not, whether the witnesses are credible and confidence inspiring or not, all these aspects are alien to the scope of enquiry at that stage. Magistrate cannot go into these aspects to aggrandize scope of enquiry to codswallop extent''.
6. Keeping view the settled position of law, in the instant case it is apparent from the record that opposite party No.2 has filed a case against the revisionists under section 138 N.I. Act in the year 2012 vide Complaint Case No. 2642 of 2012 and thereafter in the year 2017, the revisionists have come up with the theory that opposite party No.2 has committed forgery in the alleged cheques. Perusal of the complaint shows that the revisionist No. 2 has given three cheques to the opposite party No.2 against the purchase of jewellery from the opposite party No.2 and that they also got 'stopped' payment of said cheques. The revisionists have not clarified that if there was any forgery in the alleged cheques committed by the opposite party No. 2, why they did not lodge any such report at the time when they came to know about the complaint lodged by the opposite party No. 2. This undue delay in lodging the complaint raises a serious doubt about bonafideness of the revisionists/ complainant. The version of the complainant regarding delivery of alleged ornaments, against which the cheques were issued, is quite vague and lacks cogency. There are no clear averments in the complaint that jewelery, against which alleged cheques were issued, was not delivered or handed over to the complainants. In the facts and circumstances of the matter, the conclusion of the court below that this complaint has been lodged by the revisionists as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 under section 138 N.I. Act against the revisionists, appears quite reasonable and there is no illegality in the same. The impugned order has been passed considering all relevant facts and material on record.
7. Considering entire facts, there does not appear any such illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction, so as to warrant any interference by this court in revision. The criminal revision, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 T.S.