- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad dated 5th April, 2006 in Cr. Revision No. 49/2004 (Annexure 8 to this writ petition). FACTUAL BACKGROUND i) It appears that the respondent No. 2, who is a Manager of M/s. M.V. Trans India, a partnership firm, lodged a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 742 of 2003 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 23rd June, 2003. ii) It appears that as per the Complainant-Partnership firm Rs. 15 Lacs were given to the accused persons by way of two demand drafts - one is for Rs. Seven Lacs and another for Rs. 8 Lacs, both dated 3rd April, 2003, for business purposes to the accused No. 1, namely, M/s. Ravi Udyog (Private) Limited. iii) Further, looking to the complaint it appears that there is a allegation against the accused persons that the accused persons have dishonestly induced the complainant to pay Rs. 15 Lacs and the accused persons have caused wrongful loss to the complainant-partnership firm and have obtained wrongful gain and there are allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1681. iv) Several other facts have been narrated in detail in the complaint petition, annexure 1 to this writ petition. Upon hearing the complainant, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Dhanbad on 31st July, 2003 pointed out that there is prima facie offence committed by the petitioners and accordingly, notices were issued upon the petitioners and against this notice issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad, Criminal Revision petition was instituted by these petitioners bearing Cr. Revision No. 49 of 2004 before the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad which was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad vide order dated 5th April, 2006 and it has been pointed out in the order that these issues which are raised by these accused persons, who are the petitioners, can very well be raised before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of charge. It appears that prima facie there is evidence against these writ petitioners and hence, notices were issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dhanbad. All the points which are agitated before this Court, can very well be agitated before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad at the time of framing of charge. Being aggrieved by this order the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad dated 5th April, 2006, the present petition has been preferred stay has been granted against further proceedings in the Complaint Petition No. 742 of 2003 from 2nd April, 2007 and today this matter has been finally heard by this Court. ARGUMENT CANVASSED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS i) The complainant cannot file Complaint Case as per subsection (a) of Section 142 of the Act, 1881 and to substantiate this argument, the petitioners are relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2008 8 SCC 536 (para. 9) : (13) 1 JBCJ 54 (para. 9). ii) The liabilities or the role played by of these accused persons have not been mentioned in the complaint petition by the complainant and therefore also, the complaint filed by the complainant is not tenable at law. To substantiate this argument, the petitioners are relying upon the judgments 2010 3 SCC 330 (paragraph 25) and 2007 9 SCC 481 (paragraph 8). iii) No notice was given to the Directors under the Act of 1881. Thus, Company's no other directors or accused was given the notice and, hence also, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad deserves to be quashed and set aside. To substantiate this argument, the petitioners are relying upon the decision rendered in 2007 1 EastCRCases 331 (Madras High Court, Division Bench) (paragraphs 32 to 37). Counsel for the petitioners has argued the case at length and has pointed out that the aforesaid argument that the complainant cannot file complaint as he has no locus standi, liability of all the accused more particularly, of the Directors, have not been referred in the complaint and no notice have been given to each & every Directors. ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT i) It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that no error has been committed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad in issuance of the notice in pursuance of the complaint filed by the complainant, who is respondent No. 2 and, also, no error has been committed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad while dismissing the Criminal Revision preferred by these accused petitioners. ii) It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that all the points which are raised before this Court as well as before the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad, can well be raised before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Dhanbad and they have also pointed out the fact in detailed that Rs. 15 Lacs were given by the complainant-Partnership firm by two different Demand Drafts and these amount were given for business purposes. The cheques were written by the accused-Company, who are having the Directors in the Complaint Petition and the cheques have not been honored. The details of the cheques, the returns of the cheques and the notices given have been mentioned in the complaint. It is further. iii) It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the complainant has locus standi to file the complaint and there is a complaint under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and no error has been committed by both the Courts below and, hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(2.) Having heard the both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following reasons:- i) The respondent, who is the Manager of the Partnership firm, had filed a complaint being Complaint Petition No. 742 of 2003 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad dated 23rd June, 2003 mainly for the fact that the partnership firm had given Rs. 15 Lacs to the petitioners-accused company by the way of Demand Drafts - one for Rs. 7 Lacs and another was for Rs. 8 Lacs for the business purposes. ii) The respondent-Company issued a cheque for Rs. 15,18,750/- which was not honored by the Bank upon which the cheque was drawn and, therefore, notice was given and ultimately the complaint was filed. Details about the dates of depositing the cheque and return of the cheque have also been given in the complaint petition. iii) There are allegations in paragraph 7 and other paragraphs about the fact that the accused persons have dishonestly induced the Complainant-Partnership firm to pay Rs. 15 Lacs and thus, the accused persons have caused wrongful loss to the complainant-Partnership firm and the accused persons have obtained wrongful gain. iv) There are also allegations for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. v) It appears that looking to the complaint and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad vide order dated 31st July, 2003 that there is prima facie offence committed by the accused and, hence, notice has been issued and the matter was adjourned for 11th August, 2003. Against this issuance of notice, Criminal Revision application has been preferred bearing Cr. Revision No. 49 of 2004 by these petitioners before the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad. Looking to the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad dated 5th April, 2006, it appears that no error has been committed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad. The defences raised by the petitioners can well be raised before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad at the time of framing of charge. By issuance of notices by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad, the whole trial is not concluded. Complaint is not encyclopedia of all the allegations. As this Court is not entertaining this writ petition, we are not going in much detail about the arguments which are being raised by the petitioners. Suffice it to say that to keep the issues alive before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad, we are not discussing at length the reasons for brushing aside the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners, but, suffice it to say that the complainant has locus standi under sub-section (4) of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to lodge the complaint. Similarly, other points, which are also raised, have been answered that the complaint is not an encyclopedia of each & every allegations. Microscopic view cannot be taken for the purpose of the notice by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad. Sufficient it will if the prima facie allegations are leveled in the complaint petition and that is sufficient for issuance of notice. vi) The judgments which are cited by the counsel for the petitioners, are slightly on different facts looking to the facts stated in the complaint, nonetheless so far so far the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid decision are equally binding on all the Courts below i.e. this Court also and as and when issues will be raised by the petitioners, the same will be dealt with by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad looking to the evidences on record. No decision can be relied upon especially in criminal matter in isolation of the evidences on record. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2004 dated 5th April, 2006 as also we see no reason to interfere with the order of notices issued by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Dhanbad dated 31st July, 2003. There is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. The stay granted by this Court stands vacated. We hereby direct the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad to expedite the hearing of the Complaint Case No. 742 of 2003 on priority basis without any further delay and the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 shall cooperate the hearing.;