Rajasthan High Court
Gauri Shankar Paladiya S/O Shri ... vs Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri ... on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5324/2018
Gauri Shankar Paladiya S/o Shri Omprakash Paladiya, R/o 109
Jadaun Nagar-B Opposite Dalda Factory Durgapura Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Kailash Chand Saini B/c
Mali, R/o Tondwal Krishi Farm Vaibhav Nursery Opposite
Vijay Path New Sanganer Road Jaipur
2. State Of Raj. Through Pp, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv.
For State : Mr. Yashwant Kankhedia, PP
For Respondent No.1 : Dr. Mahesh Gupta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 08/09/2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 12/09/2022
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by
the petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P. c. for quashing the criminal
proceedings against him as well as the impugned order dated
25.07.2018 passed by learned Special Judge & learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan (For Short "learned Revisional
Court") in Criminal Revision Petition No.43/2017[1062/2017]
"Gauri Shanker Paladiya Vs. Mukesh Kumar Saini & Anr." whereby
revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and affirmed
the order dated 27.02.2017 passed by learned Special
Metropolitan Magistrate (N. I. Act Cases) No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan
whereby charge for offence under Section 138 N. I. Act has been
framed against the petitioner.
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-5324/2018]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned trial Court vide order dated 27.02.2017 wrongly took the
cognizance against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the respondent No.1 had filed a complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner
had filed a revision petition of cognizance order dated 27.02.2017
but the revision petition was also dismissed by the learned
Revisional Court vide order dated 25.07.2018. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits that dishonored cheque bearing
No.128509 dated 30.05.2016 was valid for Rs.10,00,000/ & under
but respondent No.1 had filled the amount of Rs.12,25,000/-. So,
the said cheque was dishonored on account of "Exeeds
Arrangement". Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
at the time of the presentation of cheque, petitioner had more
than Rs.13,00,000/-. So, the present cheque was not dishonored
on account of "Insufficient Fund". Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that the disputed cheque bears a specific
printed instruction that it would be treated valid only if issued for
a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and under. Therefore, cheque-in-question
which was filled in and presented for a sum of Rs.12,25,000/-
cannot be treated to be a valid negotiable instrument. So, order
passed by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and
confirmed by the learned Revisional Court be set-aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
on the following judgment passed in S. B. Criminal Misc.
(Petition) No.3514/2016 titled as Prem Mohan Govila Vs.
The State Of Rajasthan decided on 25.05.2018.
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-5324/2018]
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that the cheque given by the petitioner was dishonored
on account of "Exeeds Arrangement". Learned counsel for the
respondent further submitted that the exeeds arrangement is also
an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the
petitioner can raise all the objections in cross-examination as well
as at the time of final arguments. It is an admitted position that
disputed cheque bears signature of the petitioner. So, it is
irrelevant that disputed cheque filled by the petitioner or other
persons. So, order of the learned trial Court as well as learned
Revisional Court do not suffer from illegality or infirmity. So, the
present petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has
placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) P Mohanan
Pillai Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors. in Appeal(Civil)
No.927/2007 decided on 23.02.2007;(2) Thomas Varghese
Vs. P. Jerome in Crl. M. C. No.1371/1991 decided on
05.06.1992;(3) Kunjan Panicker Gangadhara Panicker Vs.
Christudas Alias A. J. Alex & Anr. in C. R. A. No.991/1998
decided on 14.02.2003; (4) Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs.
Prabodh Kumar Tewari in Criminal Appeal No.1260/2022
decided on 16.08.2022; (5) M/s. Credential Finance Ltd. Vs.
State Of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition
No.1541/1999 decided on 01.03.2000.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-5324/2018]
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as
well as learned Public Prosecutor.
It is an admitted position that the disputed cheque was
dishonored on account of "Exeeds Arrangement". It is an admitted
position that at the time of presentation of cheque, petitioner had
sufficient amount for honoring of the disputed cheque but the said
cheque was dishonored on account of "Exeeds Arrangement". A
perusal of the disputed cheque reveals that there is printed
instruction on the cheque that it would be valid only for
Rs.10,00,000/- and under but disputed cheque was of
Rs.12,25,000/-. So, in my considered opinion, it cannot be treated
as valid negotiable instrument as defined under the Negotiable
Instruments Act. So, learned trial Court had erred in taking the
cognizance under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and
the learned Revisional Court also erred in dismissing the revision
petition filed by the petitioner. So, the present petition filed by the
petitioner deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
allowed and the order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned
trial Court as well as order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the
learned Revisional Court are set-aside.
Stay application also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/83
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
