Subhash Chander vs Anil Rao and Another

T.P.S. Mann, J.—On October 22, 2008, this Court directed the respondents to look into the allegations contained in the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and in case the same were found to be correct and true, then to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of law.

According to the petitioner, the respondents did not take any action on his allegations as contained in the petition and, thus, prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.

Replies have already been filed by both the respondents. A perusal of the replies would reveal that as per the fact finding report, no cognizable offence was made out against any person. In coming to such a conclusion, following averments have been made in the reply of respondent No. 1:

That the report dated 31.12.2008 of the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar was put up before the deponent and further the mater was referred to the Economic Cell, Hisar to enquire into the allegations. Thereafter vide Order No. 9669 dated 07.03.2009 the answering respondent directed Shri Tejbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) to enquire into the complaint and verify the facts and submit his report. The Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted thorough enquiry into the matter by associating both the parties in the enquiry and submitted his finding dated 25.03.2009 stating therein that the petitioner is real uncle of Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal Advocate. The petitioner applied for membership of the Hisar Urban Area Co-operative NAT & C Society Ltd. Hisar on 10.08.2000 for taking loan. The petitioner was granted loan vide Cheque No. 35603 against which he deposited the sale deed of his house with the Society as security. The petitioner further took loan from the society to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- in January, 2001, Rs. 14,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- in June, 2002 vide Cheque No. 30109, 102379 and 23049 respectively. The petitioner also stands guarantor for loan to his son Kuldeep and Naresh Sharma son of Sat Narain, resident of Jindal Colony Hisar, Vikram Sharma son of Jai Lal resident of Surya Nagar Hisar, Rampal son of Ram Kishan resident of Surya Nagar, Rajender Kumar son of Ram Kumar resident of Dhani Puria and Shatrughan son of Hari Dass resident of HUDA Hisar in which some are the relative of the petitioner and he deposited the guarantee deed and other documents in favour of the Society. The petitioner did not deposit with the Society his own loan installments as well as the installments collected from other loanees for deposition. The Society issued notices to the petitioner and other members. The members from whom the petitioner collected the loan installments put pressure upon the petitioner to deposit the installments upon which the petitioner issued Cheques No. 546081 and 546082 on 28.01.2006 amounting to Rs. 1,30,000/- in favour of the Society. But both those Cheques were dishonoured by the Bank on account of insufficient amount in the account. The Society filed complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act in the Court against the petitioner which is still pending. The petitioner also filed suit for declaring the above said Cheques as null and void in the court of Shri Kuldeep Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar and this petition was dismissed by the learned Court on 04.12.2008. Moreover, the petitioner has leveled allegations in his complaint that in the year 2000 the Society retained Cheque book bearing Cheques No. 546081 to 546100 and got his signatures on Cheques No. 546081 to 546084 and misused Cheques No. 546081 and 546082. In this regard it is submitted that as per record of the Punjab National Bank no Cheque book was issued in the year 2000, therefore, the question of depositing the Cheque book with the Society by the petitioner as security does not arise. Thus as per the fact finding report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, no cognizance offence is made out against any person.

In view of the above, the petition has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged.

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a criminal complaint, if so advised.