Mohammad Saleem vs State of M.P. and Others

M.C. Garg, J—I have gone through records of the case and I find that in this case, original case setup by the petitioner was that he took a loan of Rs. 3 Lakhs from respondent No. 2 but he could not pay the same. He was being harassed and was being compelled to sign a blank stamp paper of Rs. 100/- and was also made to give two blank cheques to the complainant. He, therefore, filed a complaint about his harassment on 21.06.2014. It may, however, be mentioned that neither the number of the stamp paper nor the details of the cheques, which were issued was mentioned in this complaint.

It was further case of the petitioner that later on, he paid a sum of Rs. 4,31,000/- to respondent No. 2 on 15.07.2014 in lieu of a loan of Rs. 3 Lakhs in presence of two witnesses and also agreed to withdraw the complaint dated 21.06.2014 on also being assured by the respondent No. 2 to return the blank stamp papers and also the two blank cheques. It is at this juncture, he mentioned the cheque numbers 691012 of P.N.B. and 038382 of the ICICI Bank.

It is further alleged that since the cheques were not returned, he lodged a report to the Police. The said report reads as under:

It may be mentioned that in this complaint also there was no mention about the details of the cheque numbers allegedly given by the petitioner to respondent No. 2.

According to the petitioner, thereafter he moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed but later on he was arrested and released on regular bail by order dated 29.10.2014. The said order, for the sake of reference is reproduced as under:

A perusal of the order goes to show that there was a reference of the two cheques allegedly given by the petitioner of P.N.B. With respect to both these cheques, a letter to the Bank was written by the petitioner for stopping payment of those cheques. The said letter written by the petitioner is dated 03.11.2014.

In the complaint, annexure A/7, the two cheques about which there was a reference made of having being given to respondent No. 2 is regarding cheque No. 691012 of P.N.B. and cheque No. 038382 of ICICI Bank.

There is also a reference about the loss of the cheque book bearing number 456720 to 456780.

It has come that the cheques were given by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 as per the agreement dated 06.01.2014. According to the petitioner, it is in Police custody, he came to know about the presentation of cheque No. 456734 of P.N.B., for which he submits that had been lost and for which he also lodged a report. At this stage, it may be observed that in his earlier complaint, he did not gave the number of cheque No. 456734 of the P.N.B. as cheques given by him to the complainant. Moreover, in the bail application, it has come that this cheque was got stop payment by the petitioner.

FIR of this case was registered on 16.10.2014 which is based upon a document dated 02.01.2014, which reads as under:

According to the petitioner, this is a mala fide FIR inasmuch as with respect to the cheque in question, the petitioner was not given any notice under Section 138 but straightaway a complaint had been filed under Section 420 of the IPC. He also submits that since earlier also, there was a transaction between the parties, he repaid the loan after he was forced to sign two blank cheques and one stamp paper to the respondent No. 2 about which he had also lodged a report.

However, considering the entirety of the facts and without commenting any further, I find that there seems to be falsity in the allegation of the petitioner with respect to giving of the two cheques to the respondents as the cheques numbers which were given in the report earlier lodged by the petitioner are not the cheques which were being used for the purpose as leveled in this petition by the petitioner regarding loss of a cheque-book was not even mentioned in his original complaint, which he promised to withdraw i.e., complaint dated 21.06.2014 as quoted above.

As such, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to quash the proceedings as issue raised by the petitioner in this petition may of course be taken by him as defence during the course of prosecution.

Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.