9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er that in view of the provisions of the Act of 1881, the prayer for anticipatory bail should be granted. The two cheques are admittedly of 2016 with no notice under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 being placed on record. In LALITA KUMARI VERSUS GOVT. OF UP. ORS. [ 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT] , the Supreme Court is of the view that where information received does not disclose cognizable offence a preliminary inquiry may be conducted. In the facts of the present case, the police complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant against the petitioner, in substance, cannot be said not to disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Section 406 of the IPC is a continuing offence. It cannot be said with any certitude that there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited Ors. Vs. K. M. Johny Ors.) and submits that, the de-facto complainant is seeking to circumvent the civil proceedings. The claim of the de-facto complainant is barred by limitation so far as Civil Courts are concerned. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on January 11, 2022 in respect of two cheques dishonoured in 2016. He relies upon (2014) 2 SCC 1 (Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh Ors.) and submits that, the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizible offence. In any event, given the abnormal delay in initiating the criminal complaint and given the fact that the de-facto complainant did not satisfactorily explain the reasons for the delay, a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner received only one 41A Cr.P.C. notice and that the petitioner could not respond thereto as the petitioner was unwell at that material point of time. 6. There is a FIR alleging that the petitioner defrauded and cheated the de-facto complainant for a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/-. The petitioner also changed his residence and mobile phone number in order to avoid such payment. 7. The materials in the case diary discloses that, the petitioner received a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- in aggregate from the de-facto complainant through NEFT payment, cheque payment and cash payment. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner issued two cheques dated May 11, 2016 and May 15, 2016 aggregating to a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- and that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner, in substance, cannot be said not to disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Section 406 of the IPC is a continuing offence. It cannot be said with any certitude that there is no dishonest intention of the petitioner to deceive the de facto complainant. 11. In such circumstances, considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner therein and considering the fact that the petitioner did not respond to the notices issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C., the requirement of the prosecution for custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. 12. In such circumstances, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner as prayed for. CRM (A) 567 of 2022 is rejected. (Debangsu Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
