MITHILESH KUMAR SONI Vs. CHAIN SINGH MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Accused has filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside the order dated 11.09.2014 passed by learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Raisen in criminal revision No. 68/14 whereby learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision presented by respondent-complainant and made direction to take cognizance under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner-accused according to law and also to take cognizance under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of IPC against one Santosh Malviya.

(2.) The prosecution story in short is that respondent- complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It is alleged by the respondent-complainant that he sold agricultural produce to the petitioner-accused in lieu of which, the petitioner-accused gave cash amount of Rs. 12,500/- to the complainant-respondent and further issued a cheque worth of Rs. 9,00,000/- bearing cheque no. 011733 of ICICI Bank Branch- Raisen dated 20.02.2012. The said cheque was deposited by complainant-respondent in the Bank but the same was returned on 29.02.2012 with an endorsement of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter complainant-respondent issued statutory notice which was received by the petitioner-accused but petitioner-accused did not deposit amount then complainant respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner-accused appeared before the trial court. Both parties adduced evidence. Petitioner-accused also produced Mr. Devesh Nayani- Assistant Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Branch Raisen. He deposed before the trial court that disputed cheque and concerned cheque book was issued by the Bank in favour of one Santosh Malviya, thereafter Santosh Malviya cancelled the cheque. Thereafter, respondent-complainant filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for framing additional charges against the petitioner-accused under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and also filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for impleading Santosh Malviya as an additional accused. Learned trial court dismissed this application and held that complainant-respondent cannot be allowed to construct a new case on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner-accused during the course of trial. There is no evidence on record to give a conclusion that any document has been forged or fabricated.

(3.) Thereafter, respondent-complainant filed a revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen. Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen allowed the revision presented by the respondent-complainant and it was held that petitioner-accused cheated the complainant-respondent by giving a cheque from another person i.e. Santosh Malviya and Santosh Malviya also gave his cancelled cheque to the present petitioner-accused to cheat the respondent-complainant, so prima facie case is made out under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner and Section 120-B and 420 of IPC against one Santosh Malviya and trial court is directed to take cognizance against the present petitioner and Santosh Malviya according to law.