DR. GIRISH KUMAR SAXENA & ANOTHER Vs. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HARIDWAR & OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Dr. Girish Kumar Saxena And Another
District And Sessions Judge, Haridwar And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. -
(1.) AT the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that none has turned up on behalf of respondent No. 3, despite of sufficient service upon him. So, this Court has rendered hearing to learned counsel for the petitioners and also to learned brief holder for the State.
(2.) HAVING heard the pros and cons of the matter in controversy, it transpires that there was a promise of certain land transaction made by Sri Anuj Kumar to Dr. Girish Kumar Saxena. Sri Munish Kumar was the associate of Sri Anuj Kumar, whereas, Dr. Swayam Prakash Vashisth was the associate of Dr. Girish Kumar Saxena and the land in question was located in village 'Badhedi Rajputan', admeasuring almost 3.25 Bighas at the rate of Rs. 1,05,000/ - per Bigha. The total cost of land was derived at Rs. 5,25,000/ - , which had to be sold by Sri Anuj Kumar to Dr. Girish Kumar Saxena. Dr. Saxena paid the consideration of Rs. 4,75,000/ - to Sri Anuj Kumar for the same. But on one pretext or the other, the sale deed was not executed by Sri Anuj Kumar and he issued a cheque bearing No. 055722, drawn from the Central Bank of India, Haridwar from his account No. 12752 dated 30.4.2005, worth Rs. 4,75,000/ - payable to Sri Saxena, with the assurance that the cheque will be paid, if presented at the end of two months. Feeling helpless, Dr. Saxena received the cheque and presented the same through his banker Allahabad Bank on 13.10.2005, however the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund, the communication about the dishonour was extended by the Bank to Dr. Saxena on 15.10.2005. Dr. Saxena thereafter took recourse under the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued a notice, as required under the Act. When the payment was not made by Sri Anuj Kumar, in response to the notice, so issued by Dr. Saxena, then he filed a complaint bearing No. 1061/2005 sometime in December, 2005 against Sri Anuj Kumar Sharma and his associate Sri Munish Kumar, for the offences punishable under Section 420/406/504/506 IPC r/w Section 138 of N.I. Act. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and issued summons to the accused. The said cognizance order was challenged by way of C482 petition No. 214/2006, before this Court by Sri Anuj Kumar Sharma and his associate. After hearing the said petition, it was dismissed by this Court on 16.12.2006 and the cognizance order was thus, quashed. In another scenario, when Sri Anuj Kumar noticed that a complaint has been filed by Sri Girish Kumar against him and his friend Sri Munish Kumar, he countered the same by way of filing a complaint case No. 1068/2005 on 16.12.05 against Dr. Saxena and his associate for the offences u/s 420, 406 and 120 -B IPC. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter on 22.3.2006. The said order of cognizance was challenged by way of filing revision No. 163/2006. The said revision was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar on 23.3.2007, so the matter has come up by way of filing this petition, challenging the impugned order of cognizance dated 22.3.06 as well as the order of revision, affirming the same.
(3.) HAVING gone through the contents of complaint No. 1068/05, it appears that Sri Anuj Kumar has made the subject matter of complaint the same cheque (details whereof have been aforementioned) concocting a fabricated and false story against Dr. Saxena and his associate. After perusing such a concocted story, it is per se false and unbelievable and straightway a counterblast of the complaint No. 1061/2005, launched by Dr. Saxena against Sri Anuj Kumar and his associate.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.