Pardeep Kumar Grover and Another vs J. and K. Bank Limited

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code for

quashing the orders dated 12th June, 2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, in the complaint titled as Jammu and Kashmir

Bank Limited v. Pardeep Kumar Grover and Anr. and order dated 6th October, 2003 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar in the revision

petition titled as Pardeep Kumar Grover and Anr. v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, on the grounds taken in the petition.

Heard. Perused. Considered.

The exercising of powers u/s 561-A, Cr. P.C. is an exception and not the rule. This provision of law does not confer any new powers on the

High Court. It prescribes following three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court:

1) to give effect to an order under the Code;

2) to prevent abuse of the process of Court; and

3) to otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

While exercising powers under this Section, this Court does not function as an appellate Court or revisional Court. Thus the inherent jurisdiction

in terms of this Section is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great care and caution.

It appears that accused/petitioners herein have raised a plea that trial Court! was not having jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue process for

the reasons that entire transaction has taken place at Delhi and suit for recovery is pending Debt's Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, and further it is

pleaded that the allegations contained in the complaint do not constitute commission of offence,

The following points emerge for consideration.

Whether the complaint and the preliminary statements recorded prima facie constitute commission of offence punishable under Sections 420,

418, 424 and 403 of RPC?

Whether the offences were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Courts at Srinagar or Delhi as per the allegations contained in the

complaint?

Whether the averments contained in the complaint and the statements recorded disclose civil wrong?

In order to determine the said points, it is necessary to give brief facts of the case herein:

It appears that complaint came to be presented on 12th June, 2002 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar who after recording

statement of complainant and one witness on 12th June, 2002 has drawn cognizance and issued process against the accused under Sections 420

and 403 of RPC.

It is alleged in the complaint that accused obtained huge loan and thereafter willfully defaulted in the repayment. The accused were having share

certificates bearing Nos. 45299103 to 45346402 which they had pledged to bank and delivered to the complainant's branch Saddar Bazar, Delhi.

The accused after committing default were persuaded to sell the pledge of shares who had agreed to the said proposed sale of the pledged shares

but later on the company/ complainant was informed that the pledged shares were since liquidated and sold. Complainant came to know that the

said shares were fraudulently sold by the accused with criminal intention of deceiving and defrauding the complainant. Accused had sworn an

affidavit, executed an indemnity bond and induced dishonestly the complainants board office at Srinagar to issue duplicate share certificates. They

had dishonestly concealed the facts that original share certificates were pledged in favour of the complainant at Saddar Bazar, Delhi.

Statement of complainant, Mohammad Farooq Rather and one witness Parvez Ahmad was recorded. They have deposed that accused after

pledging the shares obtained fraudulently and dishonestly the duplicate copy of certificate at Srinagar.

It appears that allegations against the accused, contained in the complaint, are that accused fraudulently and dishonestly made a representation

before the bank complainant at Srinagar and also executed affidavit and indemnity bond in support of the said application and induced the Board

to issue certificates at Srinagar.

In the given circumstances, it appears that prima facie alleged offence(s) was (were) committed at Srinagar. Thus, the courts at Srinagar are

having the jurisdiction.

In the given circumstances, I am of the considered view that this petition is not maintainable and accordingly this petition is dismissed. Parties

are directed to cause appearance before the trial Court on 12-8-2006. Registry is directed to send copy of this order along with trial Court record

and also send copy of this order to revisional Court for information.