Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.Venkateshwarlu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14641 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
R.VENKATESHWARLU S/O LINGAIYYA, AGED ABOUT 54
YEARS, R/O NEAR NORTH CABIN, BEDAUPALAN,
NELLORE (A.P.) AT PRESENT VILLAGE BEDIRA, P.S.
SANAWAD, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI L.G.S. BAGHEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
MADHAV NAGAR, KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VEER BHADAIYA @ RANGKIYA NAIDU AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CLASS I
CONTRACTOR D. NO. 25/9-908 ZP COLONY P. S. AK
NAGAR, NELLORE (A.P.) OTHER ADDRESS - M/S V.
R. CONSTRUCTION, GHANTA RAJSEKAR D.NO.
26/6-210 NEAR WATER TANK GANDHI NAGAR
ROAD VEDEYAPALEM, NELLORE (ANDHRA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRAMOD THAKRE - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Despite service of notice on the respondent no.2, nobody is appearing on
his behalf. On previous date also 13.02.2020 nobody had appeared on behalf of
the respondent no.2. The matter is pending consideration before this Court
since 2012 and there is an interim order continuing since 2014 and, therefore,
this court is not inclined to adjourn the matter.
2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed
seeking quashment of criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.1229 of 2009
which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Veer Bhadaiya lodged a report at
Police Station Madhav Nagar, Kanti on 11.01.2009 with respect to some stolen
documents including a cheque bearing no.05869 amounting to Rs.40.00 lacs.
On the aforesaid report, an FIR was got registered for the offences under
Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation,
charge-sheet has been filed on 30.09.2009 under Section 380 of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioner.
4. It is argued that earlier one of the partner of Veer Bhadaiya (present
complainant) namely Krishna C.H. has also lodged a similar report of theft of
cheques bearing nos.05869 and 05862 from his office on his letter pad on
03.12.2008 at Police Station Ajaygarh, Panna, on the basis of which, an FIR
was got registered at Police Station Ajaygarh, Panna on 03.12.2008. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. In the case registered at
Panna being Criminal Case No.363 of 2008 initially the petitioner was convicted
under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 24.12.2010. A
criminal appeal was filed being Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2011 which was
allowed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panna vide order dated
28.02.2011 and the petitioner has been acquitted. It is submitted that against
acquittal of the petitioner, a criminal appeal was filed by complainant Krishna
C.H. before this Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.1764 of
2011 and the same was dismissed by this court vide judgment dated
23.09.2019.
5. It is pointed out that V.R. Constructions is a partnership firm and Veer
Bhadaiya and Krishna C.H. are the partners, who obtain a contract to construct
a road under Pradhanmanti Gram Sadak Yojana . The firm was given a patty
contract to the petitioner and in lieu of the work by the petitioner for more than
Rs.40.00 lacs, a cheque was given to him. On presentation of the cheque, the
same got dishonored. Therefore, a private complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the petitioner which was registered as
Criminal Case No.477 of 2009. In order to save themselves, a false and
frivolous FIR was registered at Police Station Ajaygarh, Panna by developing a
false story regarding theft of cheque bearing no.05869.
6. It is argued that once the petitioner has already been acquitted in pursuance
to the FIR registered by Krishna C.H. for stolen cheque bearing no.05869,
which is a cheque in question in the present case also, no case is made out
against the petitioner. Findings have been recorded by this Court in Criminal
Appeal No.1764 of 2011 which clearly show that false and frivolous case was
registered against the petitioner. Therefore, he has prayed for quashment of
entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.1229 of 2009 including the FIR
dated 11.01.2009 registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions, but
when confronted with the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1764 of 2011, he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter and fairly
submits that once the theft of cheque bearing no.05869 was taken into
consideration by this court in the criminal appeal, then it is clear that the
petitioner has been implicated in false and concocted FIR. The reason being
obvious that a criminal complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act was got registered for dishonour of cheque against the
complainant herein. He fairly submits that the matter may be decided in view of
the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1764 of 2011.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is an admitted position that a criminal case was registered at Police
Station Madhav Nagar, Katni on 11.01.2009 against the petitioner with respect
of theft of some documents which includes blank letterheads, plain paper and a
cheque bearing no.05869 amounting to Rs.40.00 lacs. In identical
circumstances, another complaint was made by one the partner of the present
complainant i.e. Krishna C.H. with respect to theft of certain documents
including the cheque being no.05869 (which is a cheque in the present case
also). On the basis of which, a criminal case was registered as Criminal Case
No.363 of 2008 and learned Judicial Magistrate Magistrate Class convicted the
petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but on
appeal being filed, the petitioner has been acquitted. Against which, a Criminal
Appeal No.1764 of 2011 was filed before this Court, which was dismissed vide
judgment dated 23.09.2019 holding as under:
"6. In the FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by the Krishna C.H., it is mentioned that
Cheque Nos. 05869 and 05862 and ten blank letterheads of the
company were stolen on 09.09.2008 while Krishna C.H. lodged the
report on 03.12.2008. In the FIR it is mentioned that when R.
Venkateshwarlu respondent No.1 / accused produced the cheque No.
05869 at Bank for encashment, complainant Krishna C.H. came to
know that the Cheque Nos. 05869 and 05862 were stolen by
respondent No.1/accused. From (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8) certified copies of
order sheets and other documents of criminal case No.477/2009 which
was pending before ACJM, Khargone, it is clear that accused /
respondent No.1 filed a criminal complaint about dishonouring of
cheque against Ganta Rajasekhar (PW-3) and Veerabhadraiah (PW-4)
on 27.01.2009. On that complaint, the court issued an arrest warrant
against Ganta Rajasekhar (PW-3) and Veerabhadraiah (PW-4) for
securing their presence and they appeared before the Court on
14.10.2009 and filed bail bonds before the court. On the said date,
they were fully aware that the Cheque Nos. 05869 is with the
respondent no.1/accused. Still Krishna C.H. lodged the report on
03.12.2009. There is no explanation regarding these delays in filing
of FIR which reinforces the possibility that complainant Krishna C.H.
lodged false first information report regarding the theft of the cheque
after respondent No.1 filed the complaint, in order to avoid the case. It
also appears from the document (Ex.D-9 to Ex.D-18) and the
admission of Veerabhadraiah (PW-4) that he had also lodged an FIR
against the respondent No.1 / accused at P.S. Madhav Nagar, Katni on
11.01.2010 averring that respondent had stolen the same cheques i.e.
cheque no. 005689 and 005862 from his possession from Katni
between 04/04/2008 to 18.12.2008. Krishna C.H. lodged a report on
03.12.2008 at P.S. Ajaygarh averring that said cheques were stolen
from his possession on 09.09.2008 from Panna while Veerabhadraiah
(PW-4) lodged the FIR on 11/01/2009 at P.S. Madhav Nagar, Katni
averring that the respondent No.1 / accused stole the cheque no.
005689 and 005862 from his possession from Katni between
04/04/2008 to 18.12.2008 which clearly shows that Krishna C.H.
lodged false report against the respondent No.1 / accused regarding
stolen of cheque Nos. 005689 and 005862 and letter pad.
7. Respondent No.1 / accused clearly took the defence that he had
worked with V.R. Construction Company payment of Rs. 40,00,000/-
was due on the company and in lieu of that work Veerabhadraiah
(PW-4) gave advance cheque No. 05689 dated 10.09.2008 to him and
also executed the agreement (Ex.D-19.) In that agreement, it is
mentioned that the cheque no.05689 was being given to the
respondent in lieu of payment of work done by the applicant. Although
Veerabhadraiah (PW-4) in his statement denied from the fact that
(Ex.D-19) was executed by him but Complaint Krishna C.H. admitted
in his cross-examination that the signature on (Ex.D-19) was of
Veerabhadraiah. Even Guntur Rajshekhar Rao admitted in his cross-
examination that respondent No. 1 did work for V.R. Construction
company. He paid for that to respondent no.1 but he paid that amount
in cash and denied from the fact that he gave cheque no. 05689 of Rs.
40,00,000/- to the respondent no.1. But the prosecution did not
produce any evidence to show that Rs. 40,00,000/- was paid to the
respondent No.1 in cash by the V.R. construction company. So the
defence of the respondent no.1 that the said cheque no. 05689 was
given to him by Veerabhadraiah (PW-4) in lieu of payment due on the
company appears to be probable. So in the considered opinion of this
court, learned ASJ did not commit any mistake in finding that
prosecution failed to prove that respondent No. 1 stole the cheque no.
05689 from the possession of complainant and in acquitting the
respondent No.1 /accused of the charge punishable under section 379
of the IPC. Hence the appeal has no force and is hereby rejected."
10. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparently clear that a
false First Information Report has been registered regarding theft of cheque
bearing no.05869 against the petitioner just to avoid the criminal proceedings
with respect to dishonour of cheque filed by the present petitioner against the
complainant in this case. Filing of the criminal complaint under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act is not disputed in the matter. The theft of
cheque bearing no.05869 is also one of the document, on the basis of which,
another FIR got registered. Therefore, two FIRs have been registered at
different police stations for the same theft of cheque bearing no.05869 and the
story being identical in both the cases. The complainants being partners of V.R.
Constructions Company and both the partners have lodged two different FIRs
against the petitioner. One of the partner admittedly failed to make out a case
regarding theft of documents and cheque against the petitioner and he has been
acquitted. Even the appeal filed by the complainant Krishna C.H. has been
dismissed on 23.09.2019 by this court. Thus, it is apparently clear that the FIR
and the Criminal Proceedings initiated against the petitioner with respect to
stolen document is a forged and fabricated and concocted story created by the
complainant just to avoid the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Under all these circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that
story being a false and fabricated does not constitute any offence against the
present petitioner. Therefore, the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case
No.1229 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni
including the FIR dated 11.01.2009 registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar,
Katni against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
11. The petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
