C.M. Mahadeva vs State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the third respondent and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Respondent No. 3 has filed a private complaint in PCR No. 25788/2013 against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

The brief factual matrix of the case are as follows:-

The third respondent is a Class II Civil Contractor and he has been doing lot of contract works. The complainant to clear up the bills to the customers, he used to keep the signed cheque book along with him. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 being the close friend and also a relative of respondent No. 3; often used to visit the house of the Complainant; misusing the intimacy and good relationship, petitioner No. 1 has taken away the cheque book from the house of the Complainant, which were kept signed. The Complainant (Respondent No. 3) came to know about the same only when notices were issued by some persons misusing the said lost cheques of respondent No. 3. Having come to know about that immediately he lodged a complaint to investigate the matter for the above said offences. The learned Counsel brought to my notice that the first petitioner and the second petitioner have colluded with each other and infact to some extent, it appears the first petitioner has forged the signature of the second petitioner and also misrepresented himself before the Court of law. Hence, he has also filed a complaint before the Registrar of this Court for taking action.

Be that as it may, looking to the above said allegations made in the complaint, there is allegation of forgery of the cheque and also commission of theft of cheque book and misusing the said cheque book and on receiving the said complaint, the learned Magistrate has referred the complaint to S.J. Park police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for investigation and report. In that juncture, it appears the present petition is filed.

When there are specific allegations made in the complaint, merely because some cheque bounced cases have been lodged against the third respondent by some person including petitioner No. 2 herein that itself is not sufficient to throw out of the complaint of respondent No. 3 as false or counterblast to the cheque bounced bases. It is the specific case of the third respondent that the petitioners herein have committed theft of cheque book; forged the cheque leaves and also misused the same in order to gain false claim against the third respondent. When such specific allegations are there in the complaint, which discloses the prima-facie case to the Magistrate to refer the matter for investigation, in my opinion, this Court cannot interfere with the investigation at the threshold, the police have to investigate the allegation made against the petitioners by giving equal opportunity to the third respondent and the petitioners herein and the police have to file an appropriate report to the Court. If the allegations made in the complaint found to be false; the police can take appropriate action against the third respondent. If the allegations found to be true, the police also directed to file an appropriate report to the Court. Therefore, at the threshold when the allegations made in the complaint are sufficient to constitute cognizable offences, the investigation cannot be scuttled down at the initial stage. Therefore, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the investigation and to entertain this petition. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court in future, if advised as and when required.

With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.

Learned Counsel also filed a memo alleging forgery of some documents by the first and second petitioner herein. He is at liberty to approach the competent Court for his remedies.