TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections of the learned MM in CC No.67/2005 filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Mr. Purakh Chand Minda (P. C. Minda). On completion of investigation, the Chargesheet was filed against the Respondents. Sh. P. C. Minda died on 04.11.2018 and the matter on behalf of the Company was being pursued by Mr. Kunal Minda before the learned MM as well as before learned ASJ. Therefore, permission has been sought by him to represent the company in present Petitions. 3. Reliance has been placed on Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu &Anr., 2022 (9) SCC 321, wherein, it was observed that the legislature has given a wide and expansive meaning to the expression 'victim' which means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. The victim therefore, has a right to come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding even though the same are being undertaken on behalf of the State. 4. The Application is supported by the Board Resolution dated 12.02.2023 authorising Mr. Kunal Minda to represent the Company. The Applicant had repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, while the second Cheque No. 830616 was forged for an amount of Rs.2.5 crore in favour of Respondent No. 2, Tarun Bindal. 12. The Complainant alleged that these were the blank signed Cheques which had been stolen by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, on 18.12.2003, who had accompanied him in his car to Shalimar Bagh Market. He had not suspected Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, who is his son-in-law, of this alleged theft on the date when he found his bag and valuable documents missing. He came to know that missing cheques had in fact, been stolen by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, when he got the intimidation of cheques being presented by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / Harish Bindal and Tarun Bindal for encasement. He then came to know about the cheating and forgery and filed a Complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned MM. 13. On the directions of the learned MM, present FIR No.542/2005 was registered on 03.07.2005. 14. The investigation was duly carried out by the Police and Charge Sheet was filed before the learned MM, on 16.10.2008. 15. Learned MM in his detailed Order dated 21.05.2011 referred to the NCR, bank letters and Hand-Writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Agency, if remained un-rebutted and un-conflicted is believed to be true, the accused cannot be discharged of the offence. The prima facie perusal of the material on record and the Chargesheet would show great suspicion against the Respondents; thus, there was no occasion for them to be discharged by the learned ASJ. 21. It is submitted that the Respondents had defended the cheques by relying on the alleged Covering letters dated 25.09.2003, which had been allegedly sent along with two cheques to the Respondents. It is asserted that the FSL report has clearly opined that the body of the cheques, i.e. date, amount and the name of drawee of the cheque, has been filled by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, thereby, giving rise to a grave suspicion against both the Respondents. If the cheques had been actually issued by the Complainant, where was the question of just giving blank cheques without filling up the details. 22. It is further contended that the Respondents have relied on MoU dated 01.04.2001, but the two contesting witnesses, Mr. S. K. Mangla and Mr. Ajay Kumar Bindal, in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated they had signed the said MoU at the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so admitted and corroborated by the Statement of Accounts of Respondent No. 2, Tarun Bindal. Mr. P. C. Minda had admitted the execution of MoU cum Agreement in his cross-examination, in Complaint case under Section 138 NI Act against him. 26. It is further contended that P. C. Minda and other Directors of the Complainant Company sighted fiscal constraints in immediate payment of commission and asked Respondent No. 2 Tarun Bindal to accept the Post-Dated Cheque for the commissioned amount, which was accepted by him in view of the close family relations. The cheque for Rs.2.5 crore was issued on 25.09.2003 along with the Confirmation Letter on the letterhead of the Complainant Company. The signatures on both, the Cheque and Confirmation Letter, are admitted by P. C. Minda. 27. It is further submitted that alongside the payment of commission, the repayment of loan to the Respondents was also discussed.Again, because of the financial constraints, P. C. Minda had requested Respondents to accept the advance Cheques dated 15.02.2005 in the name of Harish Bindal (Respondent No. 1) as part repayment of loan along with interest, which was accompanied by a similar Confirmation letter on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given to the Respondents as explained by them. The averments made in the Complaint to the learned MM is a counter blast to the Complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act,out of vendetta, mala fide and ulterior motives. 34. It is also asserted that information to the Bank about the Cheques being missing was conveyed on 25.03.2004, i.e. 96 days after the incident, which is highly abnormal and unbelievable. Furthermore, the falsity of the entire assertions of the Complainant is evident from the statement of P. C. Minda under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 28.05.2006, wherein he admitted having received a loan of Rs.64 lacs from the Respondents through Account Payee Cheques, but falsely alleged that the loan amount has been returned in cash. Such alleged return of loan amount in cash, is in contravention of Section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No documents of repayment of loan in cash have been placed on record. 35. The evidence of hand-Writing Expert Mr. Anurag Sharma, who gave his expert opinion, is not a direct evidence against the Respondents and is not supported by the enlarged photographs of the compared writings. Mr. Anurag Sharma, in his statement on oath in the Complaints....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eques along with blank Stamp papers and other documents, were missing. Thinking that the same had been dropped / lost somewhere, he got an NCR dated 18.12.2003 registered at PS: Shalimar Bagh. 42. He also took out an Advertisement in two daily newspapers, namely Jansatta and Indian Express on 26.12.2003, in regard to his missing documents. 43. The Respondents have asserted that interestingly, similar Advertisements had been made in the name of the son of P. C. Minda as well for the same date and the same documents. Two persons, i.e. father and son, could not have lost the same documents on the same day in the same manner. The way Public Notices have been published, clearly indicate the falsity of the claim of the complainant. 44. However, this contention has no merit for the reason that the advertisements taken out by P. C. Minda and his son pertained to the same incident of loss of documents of the Company which were being carried by P. C. Minda. To claim that there are two different assertions being made by two different people about the same incident, is clearly not tenable. 45. Respondents have further asserted that in December, 2003, the Complainant had alleged tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s when the Complainant was under the impression that the cheques have been misplaced, time taken to get the payments against the Cheques stopped, cannot be considered as a circumstances creating a doubt about the entire story at the time of framing of Charge or entitling the Respondents to Discharge. 51. Respondents had heavily relied on the letter of Canara Bank dated 08.02.2008, wherein it was indicated that Cheque Nos. 830614 and 830617 of the same series, which was issued prior and after the impugned two Cheques bearing Nos. 830615 and 830616, were duly encashed in the year 2003, shows that the allegations are manipulated. 52. However, it has been explained by the Complainant that since he used to travel frequently and in order to ensure that business of the Company is not hampered in his absence, he used to leave some loose blank cheques and letter heads of the Company under his signatures to facilitate the business. It is therefore, his explanation as to why these two impugned cheques were blank signed cheques. Therefore, the circumstance that cheques prior and subsequent to the impugned two cheques got honoured in 2003, itself cannot be a circumstance which makes the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, it was one of the blank stamp papers, which the Complainant had misplaced in the year December, 2003, which have been misused by the Respondents to create this MoU. He has denied the authenticity of the said MoU. 58. The statement of the two attesting witnesses, i.e. Mr. S. K. Mangla and Mr. Ajay Kumar Bindal, were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the Investigating Officer, who stated that they had signed the MoU at the instance of Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, but had not seen the Complainant signing it. This prima facie raises the question about the authenticity of the MoU, which cannot be considered in favour of the Respondents, at this stage of framing of Charge. 59. The Respondents have also relied on the statement made by the P. C. Minda in his cross-examination during the trial of Complaint Case under Section 138 NI Act, wherein it was admitted that MoU had been executed by him. This admission of the Complainant cannot be considered at the stage of considering the prima facie case at the stage of Charge as such alleged admissions need to be proved by confronting the Complainant with the same. It may be a significant aspect but cannot be considered at the stag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments on which the Respondents have relied upon to plead their innocence, are two Covering Letters dated 25.09.2003 along with which the impugned two cheques have been allegedly received by the Respondents. 66. The Complainant has taken a plea that these were the blank Letter heads of the Company which had only his signatures, which had been stolen by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal and have been misappropriated and forged by both the Respondents. 67. To corroborate that these cheques have been manipulated, reference has been made to the contents of Letters dated 25.09.2003 addressed to Respondent No. 2 Tarun Bindal, wherein it is indicated that the cheque of Rs.2.5 crore has been given in 2003 for the projected profits for the next five years and the estimated commission to which Respondent No. 2 Tarun Bindal would become entitled. 68. Though, it may not be appropriate to comment on this aspect, but it cannot be overlooked that no business person would give a commission in 2003 for the business and the profits that may accrue in the future. The contents of the Letter need to be proved through evidence especially in the light of denial of its contents by the Complainant. ....