Sant Kumar Sharda vs State of Panjab and anr.

B.S. Yadav, J.

In this petition filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner Sant Kumar Sharda prays for quashing the complaint dated 16th April, 1983 filed by respondent No. 2 Hari Krishan in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, and order passed by that Court for summoning the petitioner and another as accused. The facts as appear from the petition and the various annexures are that the petitioner was married to Smt. Asha Lata. On 4th May, 1982 he filed an application for divorce against his wife. While that application was pending, Smt. Asha Lata, who had already filed an application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, was allowed maintenance on 19th May, 1982 at the rate of Rs. 350/ per month. Upto January, 1983 the petitioner had paid maintenance to her.

On Ist February. 1983, 6th March, 1983 and 15th March, 1983, the petitioner sent three Account Payee cheques of Rs. 350/ each towards maintenance to Smt. Asha Lata. Those cheques were drawn on the Punjab National Bank, Batala. Smt. Asha Lata got delivered those cheques to her Bankers i e. Punjab & Sind Bank at Patiala. However. those cheques were received uncleared as there were some cuttings and alterations in the cheques.

Hari Krishan (respondent No. 2). who is brother of Smt. Asha Lata, filed a complaint dated 16th April, 1983 in a Court at Patiala. In this complaint it was alleged that he had deposited the above Account Payee Cheques with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Namdev Khan Road, Branch Patiala, on behalf of his sister Smt. Asha Lata, for collection and credit in her Savings Bank Account. The said Bank sent those cheques to its Branch at Batala which in turn sent them to the Punjab National Bank, Industrial Estate, Batala, for collection. Sant Kumar Sharda was employed in that Branch of the Punjab National Bank while his coaccused was its Manager. The said Branch of the Punjab National Bank returned the cheques with the observations that those could not be encashed as those bore cuttings/alterations. The Bankers of Smt Asha Lata returned the cheques to her with the relevant memos issued by the above Bank. On receiving back the cheques it transpired that Sant Kumar Sharda in connivance with his coaccused made alterations/cuttings in the said cheques and forged them with the intention of cheating Smt Asha Lata.

After recording preliminary evidence in that case the learned Magistrate vide order dated 6th September, 1983 summoned Sant Kumar Sharda and his coaccused to stand their trial under sections 420 and 421 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

Reverting to the present petition, it is further alleged that on 7th October, 1983 Smt Asha Lata filed an application for execution of the maintenance order. In that execution application she claimed arrears of maintenance from Ist February, 1983. On the 17th December, 1983 the parties to the divorce application entered into a compromise and mutually agreed to obtain a decree of divorce. On the basis of the statements of the parties the Court dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce In, her. statement made in the Court, Smt. Asha Lata had also stated that she had received Rs. 10,000/ in lump sum and in consideration of that amount she gave'' up her claim for arrears of maintenance which might have fallen due and for future maintenance and also agreed to withdraw the execution application. The petitioner in his statement made during those proceedings had stated that he had paid the said amount as permanent. alimony and all disputes between the parties had been settled out of Court.

The petitioner further alleged that inspite of the said compromise arrived at between the parties during those divorce proceedings, the continuance of the criminal complaint and the proceedings in pursuance thereto are an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner prays for quashing of, the complaint and the proceedings taken thereon mainly on the following grounds :

The Court at Patiala had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of the cause of action had arisen at Patiala.

Hari Krishan, brother of Smt. Asha Lata has no locus standi to file the said complaint as no offence in respect of him or any property belonging to him had been committed.

On 17th December, 1983 all the disputes between the parties had come to an end.

Smt. Asha Lata had agreed to withdraw her execution application in respect of the arrears of maintenance and the arrears included the period for which the cheques were issued.

I will take the above grounds in seriatim.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the alleged alterations/cuttings in the cheques were made at Batala, and therefore, the Court at Patiala had no jurisdiction. This argument has no force. The cheques were delivered to Smt. Asha Lata at Patiala. The cheques were handed over to her bankers at Patiala by the complainant. At that time according to the complaint, the cheques were in order. The amount, after collection from the Punjab National Bank, Batala, was to be credited in the account of Smt. Asha Lata in the Punjab& Sind Bank, Patiala. On account of the nonencashment of the cheques, she has been deprived of the amount at Patiala. Section 179, Criminal Procedure Code, reads as follows :

"When act is an offence by reason. of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or'' such consequence has ensued."

Thus the consequence of the alleged forgery has ensued at Patiala because Smt. Asha Lata has been deprived of the amount of those cheques. Thus the Patiala Court has clearly jurisdiction to try the complaint.

The objection that Hari Krishan had no locus standi to file the complainant, has also no force. Any person can move a Court to take cognizance of an offence irrespective of the fact whether he has been a a victim of the offence or not. In this respect reference can be made to A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another, A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 718 wherein it was remarked :

"It is a well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statue enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Criminal P.C. envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to Court. Even for the most serious offence or murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint can, not only be failed but can be entertained and proceeded with according to law. Locus standi of the complaint is a concept foreign, to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating on offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication. and general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision."

The learned counsel for the petitioner filed to point out any specific provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code under which only the person who has been cheated can set in motion criminal law. Hari Krishan is thus'' competent to file the complaint in respect of the alleged offences committed by the petitioner and his coaccused in respect of the cheques. The above argument is overruled.

Grounds No. 3 and 4 have also no force. Even if all the disputes between Smt. Asha Lata and her husband have been settled, there is no bar in the continuance of criminal proceeding taken pursuant to the complaint filed by Hari Krishan. The offences of cheating and forgery were completed when the alleged forgeries were effected. Even if subsequently, Smt. Asha Lata gave up her claim for. arrears, it cannot be said that the offences would come to an end..

For the foregoings reasons, I do not find any force in the present petition and dismiss the same.