9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order dated 07.10.2020. By the said order, the High Court has allowed the petition filed by Respondent No.2 herein under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quashed the final report submitted alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 472 IPC by respondent No.2 herein. 2. The brief facts leading to the case is that the appellant herein as de facto complainant filed a complaint dated 14.01.2014 before the Sub-Inspector, Payyannur Police Station alleging that the cheque bearing No.813/063676 of Canara Bank, Payyannur Branch relating to A/c No.13111/2019 standing in the name of the appellant has been fraudulently obtained by the respondent No.2 herein and on forging the appellant's signature has attempted to extract amount from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation it was revealed that the cheque leaf is belonged to the de facto complainant and it contains his signature. Final report was submitted on the allegation that the accused threatened the de facto complainant by using the said cheque. But no such case was raised by the complainant. The submission of final report for the abovesaid offence hence is an abuse of process of the court and quashed. Crl. M.C. is allowed accordingly." 4. The appellant, thus being aggrieved is before this Court assailing the said order. 5. Heard Shri Raghenth Basant, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Shri Nishe Rajen Shonker, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and perused the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e final report. The only observation which appears to have influenced the decision of the High Court is that the cheque leaf belongs to the appellant and it contains her signature and there is no allegation of threat. On the other hand, the very case sought to be made out by the appellant is that the cheque belonging to the appellant has been wrongly possessed by respondent No.2 and the cheque has been presented for realization by forging her signature and an attempt was made to extract the money. The non-examination of the case is incorrect perspective, keeping in view the guideline laid down by this Court to be borne in mind while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in various decisions, more particularly in the case of Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
