Yogendra Kumar Agarwal and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Amitav Kumar Gupta, J.—The Cr. Revision Application as well as the Cr.M.P are being heard together and disposed of with this common order, as both the cases arise out of the C.P. Case No. 02 of 2006.

Brief facts of the complainant i.e. O.P. No. 2''s case is that he is the proprietor of a firm in the name and style of M/s Tractor Tractor India, at Hazaribagh, involved in the business of financing for the purchase of motor vehicles. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 Yogendra Kumar Agarwal is the owner of M/s Tirupati Investments, at Jorafatak Road, Dhanbad and the other petitioners namely, Mohan Singh @ Motan Singh, Aatmaram Patwari, Ratgan Verma and Mahesh Goswami are the officials and staff of the said M/s Tirupati Investments The said firm has a business of financing trucks and buses on hire purchase basis. The complainant was also engaged as an agent by M/s Tirupati Investments for the purpose of bringing prospective customers to the firm of opposite party. That on 10.04.2011 the complainant was at the office of the petitioner No. 1 in connection with some work, at that time one Nasima Khatoon was present there for purchase of TATA mini truck to be financed by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner asked the complainant to put his signature on blank and printed form as a witness to the agreement but the complainant was reluctant to sign on the papers as Nasima Khatoon was a stranger to him however on persuasion of the opposite party he put his signature on the said blank form whereafter they told him that his signature was obtained as a guarantor and not as a witness upon which the complainant reprimanded the petitioner. It was revealed that complainant was also made liable along with the said borrower for payment of the financed amount for the truck. Since the borrower defaulted in payment of the installment the accused - petitioner sent a legal notice and terminated the agreement by letter dated 27.07.2001 and filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the City Civil Court, Kolkata for appointing a receiver and seizure of the vehicle wherein complainant was also arrayed as a party.

It is stated that the complainant was exonerated from his liabilities vis-a-vis hire purchase agreement dated 10.04.2001 however, on 10.01.2004, the petitioner/accused instituted Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 6 of 2004 through the Field Officer, Mohan Singh, alleging that the complainant in connivance with others, had changed the registration number of the vehicle and sold the same to some other person. That the complainant obtained bail in the said case. This resulted in a stigma being cast on his reputation. The complainant approached the petitioner in connection with the case whereupon he was told to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a condition for compromising the case. It is alleged that the said case was instituted with an intention to blackmail the complainant and his signature was taken on the blank forms by misrepresentation of facts by the petitioners.

On the basis of the complaint and statement, cognizance was taken under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the petitioner had filed an application for discharge and also for dropping the proceeding on the ground of territorial jurisdiction but the petition was rejected by order dated 18.07.2007 impugned in the Cr. Revision No. 675 of 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro and order dated 12.03.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro impugned in Cr.M.P No. 856 of 2008.

Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel, for the petitioners, has submitted that the trial court and the revisional court i.e. the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge have failed to appreciate the fact that the offence was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Bokaro. That in the absence of any cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of Bokaro the court should not have taken cognizance of the offence and should have discharged the petitioner. In support of his contentions he was placed reliance on the decision in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, .

It is contended that the complaint has been filed with a malafide intention by the complainant to set up a defence, as the petitioner had lodged Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 6 of 2004, i.e. two years prior to the present case. It is urged that no ingredients for the offence under Sections 417 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the trial court and the revisional court of Additional Sessions Judge have rejected the applications for discharge and for dropping the proceeding in a mechanical manner without appreciating and considering the material facts. It is argued that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the proceeding be quashed.

Mr. Shafique Rehman, learned counsel, for O.P. No. 2, has contended that O.P. No. 2 has been acquitted in connection with the case arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 6 of 2004. Thus contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case has been filed with malafide intention is not sustainable. It has further been submitted that though the cause of action arose in Dhanbad but the consequence had spilled over to the jurisdiction of Bokaro however, he has fairly admitted that the matter regarding the territorial jurisdiction has not been adjudicated by the courts below.

Heard. Perused the impugned order dated 18.07.2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro whereby the petition for discharge was rejected and the order dated 12.03.2008, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro whereby revision filed against rejection order of the application under Sections 177 and 468 of the Cr.P.C. passed by the trial court was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro.

On perusal of the order dated 18.07.2007, it is evident that the trial court has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order without discussing the material evidence or reasons to show that the trial court was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also evident that in the impugned order dated 12.03.2008 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, there is no discussion on the issue whether the Magistrate had the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Admittedly the complainant has alleged that he had put his signature on the blank forms on the persuasion of the petitioner in the office of the petitioner situated at Dhanbad. Thereafter he was informed that his signature had been obtained as a guarantor for the loan financed to Nasima Khatoon and not as a witness whereupon he had reprimanded and chided the petitioner. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 admitted that the Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 6 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner in the year 2004 wherein opposite party was arrayed as an accused. It is admitted case of the complainant - opposite party that after obtaining bail, he had approached the petitioner and the petitioner had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as a condition for compromising the case.

O.P. No. 2 has admitted that he is the proprietor of a business firm in the name and style of M/s Tractor India at Hazaribagh, which carries on a business of financing vehicles similar to that of the complainant. In such circumstances O.P. No. 2 must have been well aware of the niceties of the trade and modalities, procedure and the papers required to be filled by a witness or a guarantor. The allegation that he had signed the blank forms on the persuasion of the petitioner cannot be accepted as he is not a layman or a rustic. Evidently the cause of action arose when the complainant signed the papers in the office of the petitioner at Dhanbad. There is no material on record to show that the consequences of the cause of action at Dhanbad spilled over to the jurisdiction of Bokaro.

The trial court has not considered the admitted fact that Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 6 of 2004 was filed in the year 2004 by the petitioner against complainant/O.P. No. 02. Evidently the O.P. - complainant was informed that his signature was taken in the capacity of a guarantor and not as a witness immediately after he had signed on the blank forms and he had chided the petitioner but he did not lodge any complaint nor protested that his name be deleted as a guarantor. He did not lodge any complaint soon after the petitioner had lodged the police case in 2004. It is abundantly clear that the complaint was filed after two years without any explanation for the delay.

The facts disclosed as per the complaint petition do not show that the complainant/O.P was deceived or induced to deliver any valuable security or document to attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. As noticed the cause of action never arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Bokaro. Complaint in unequivocal terms has stated, as noticed above, that he had put his signature at Dhanbad and it is not his case that the incidents took place partly at Bokaro and partly at Dhanbad. In fact there is no uncertainty as to the place of occurrence accordingly the provisions of Sections 178 or 179 of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable or attracted in the admitted facts of the case. The word ''Ordinarily'' has been inserted by the legislature in Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. with an intent that it shall be subject to the special provisions of the Code. It is pertinent to reiterate that the complaint was filed after more than two years of filing of the police case by the petitioner, in such circumstances the possibility of malafide prosecution cannot be ruled out.

In the backdrop of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs and the attending facts allowing the continuation of the case will tantamount to abuse of process of court/law and waste of public time. Thus the petitioners are discharged of the charge for the offence under Section 417 of the I.P.C. The Complaint Case No. 2 of 2006 and the proceeding is, hereby, quashed.

The order dated 18.07.2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2006 and the order dated 12.03.2008, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Revision No. 07 of 2008 are, hereby, set aside.

In the result, the Revision Application and Cr.M.P are, hereby, allowed.