In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

  High Court Division

  (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

         MR. JUSTICE ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN

AND

    MR. JUSTICE MD. ATABULLAH

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 44810 OF 2013

S.M. Abdul Wadud and others.....…Accused-petitioners

-Versus-

The State….….....Opposite parties

Mr. Md. Abdur Rashid, Advocate

... .........For the accused-petitioners None appears..........For the opposite parties

Mr. K.M. Masud Rumy, DAG with

Mr. Mehadi Hasan (Milon), AAG and

Ms. Aleya Khandker, AAG

........For the state

Heard on: 20.05.2024

Judgment on: The 2nd of June, 2024 ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued on an application filed by the accused-petitioners under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the proceedings of Petition Case No. 2568 of 2010 initiated under sections 31/506 and 386 of the Penal Code now pending in the 4th Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka should not  be  quashed  and/or  such other or  further  order  or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings of the aforesaid Petition Case No. 2568 of 2010 for 3 (three) months from  the  date  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  accused- petitioners  which  was  time  to  time  extended  by  this Court.

For the disposal of this Rule, the relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows:

That the opposite party No. 2 as complainant filed a Petition Case No. 2568 of 2010 against the accused- petitioners  alleging  inter  alia  that  at  the  initial  stage complainant  started  a  business  with  Jamuna  Electric Manufacturing  Limited  (herein  referred  as  Jamuna Limited). In order to repay the unpaid dues amounting to Tk. 1,15,00,000/- (Taka One crore and Fifteen lac), the complainant issued 5 (five) separate cheques in favour of the accused-petitioners (Jamuna Limited) as a security cheques.  Subsequently,  the  complainant  adjusted  the entire  unpaid  dues  to  the  accused-petitioners  (Jamuna Limited) and took back the aforesaid cheqeus from the accused-petitioners.  On  the  date  of  occurrence,  the accused-petitioners all of a sudden entered into the office of the complainant and forcefully took 5 (five) cheques along  with  one  undertaking  on  gun  point  from  the complainant. Hence, the aforesaid case was filed against the  accused-petitioners.  Thereafter,  the  accused- petitioners  appeared  before  the  Court  below  and obtained  bail.  At  the  time  of  framing  of  charge,  the accused-petitioners  filed  an  application  under  section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court  for  discharged  which  was  rejected.  Being aggrieved,  the  accused-petitioners  filed  a  Criminal Revision  No.  205  of  2012  before  the  Metropolitan Sessions  Judge  which  was  also  discharged  vide  its judgment  and  order  dated  05.09.2013.  Thereafter,  the accused-petitioners preferred this application before this Court  under  section  561A  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure  for  quashing  the  aforesaid  proceeding  and obtained the instant Rule and stay.

Mr. Md. Abdur Rashid, the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioners mainly submits that regarding the cheque in question the accused-petitioners filed 5 (five) Petition Case being Nos. 2959 of 2010, 3211 of 2010, 3376 of 2010, 3517 of 2010 and 3093 of 2011 before the Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate  (North),  Dhaka  against the  accused-petitioners  under  section  138  of  the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 which is still pending. The  complainant  opposite  party  are  capable  to  see whether the cheque in question were taken away from the  complainant  against  his  will.  So  there  is  no apprehension  of  the  complainant  as  to  getting  fair justice, rather the multiplicity case would be curbed if the  impugned  proceeding  is  quashed  for  the  ends  of justice.

He further contended that the allegation as made in the petition of complaint even if taken at their face value and  accepted  in  their  integrity  do  not  constitute  any offence against the accused-petitioners and as such the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

No one appears for the opposite parties to opposes the Rule.

Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the  accused-petitioners  and  perused  the  petitioner’s application  along  with  other  materials  on  record thoroughly.

The only issue for determination of this Rule is to see whether the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

In  the  instant  case,  the  learned  Advocate  for  the accused-petitioners contended that regarding the cheque in question, the accused-petitioners filed 5 (five) Petition Case Nos. 2959 of 2010, 3211 of 2010, 3376 of 2010, 3517 of 2010  and  3093  of  2011  before  the  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate,  (North)  Dhaka  against  the  complainant  under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 which is still pending.

On the other hand, the complainant mainly contended that  the  impugned  cheques  in  questions  were  forcefully taken from the complainant on gun point.

 So, the nature of allegation of both the aforesaid cases are completely different which needs to be decided through evidence at the time of trial.  

Under the given facts and circumstances of the case and  the  reasons  as  stated  above,  we  do  not  find  any substance of this Rule.

As a result, the Rule is discharged.

The  order  of  stay  granted  earlier  by  this  Court  is hereby stand vacated.

Communicate this order at once.

Md. Atabullah, J:

I agree