• Registration of complaint u/s 420 in the absence of a complainant

My brother was a branch head of a Bank in 1991. Large number of Bankers' cheque was used to be  issued daily favouring Coal India Ltd  which were purchased by coal traders for purchase of coal. At Coal India, there were fixed periods for sale of coal. After the expiry of the sale period, sale was stopped. Bankers' Cheques were signed by two officers. My brother, as branch head was not directly responsible for issuance of these cheques, but sometimes in emergency, he had to put his signature.   

In 1994, there was an anonymous complaint that ante dated Bankers' Cheques were issued in the year 1991 by the Bank to help those traders purchase coal, who turned up after expiry of sale period. In a CBI raid 49 such cheques were detected where a date prior to the actual issue date was mentioned in the column for date of issue. As the books were kept open at Coal India, applications were received in back date and coal was sold. Bank was not in loss as proper commission for issue of Bankers' Cheque was obtained. In the process neither Coal India nor the Bank suffered any loss. No internal inspections of the two organisations considered these as irregularities.
Out of the 49 such cheques, two reportedly contained the signature of my brother. My brother was not aware of issuance of the back dated cheques. Signatures appearing on the cheques are either forged or he might have signed under work pressure based on the existing signature of one officer. A case u/s 120B, 420, 467,468,471 & 477A was registered against my brother and others. My questions are:
1. As no person has been cheated nor Govt has incurred any loss nor there is any complainant, can a case u/s 420 be registered? (In fact Coal India could sell the unsold coal and earned profit).
2. There was no meeting of officials of Bank & Coal India, the fact was accepted by the I.O. during cross examination, whether 120 B is sustainable?
Asked 11 months ago in Criminal Law from Patna, Bihar
Religion: Hindu
What about the complaint?
Who made it before CBI?
The question is not about the cheating and harming any individual by such act neither the remarks of the internal auditors is taken into consideration.  It may not be considered as a grave irregularity by the internal inspectors because of the fact that it did not affect any individual nor the organisation, the complaint would have been based on great loss to exchequer for fabricating or forging the instruments for wrongful gains 
The question of sustainability of the case will depend on how the defence is confronting the prosecution case and challenging the issues before and defends its client. 
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13943 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Once a person has signed a cheque there is a presumption that he signed it with his free consent. The onus to prove coercion or forgery of signature is on the person who claims it. It is immaterial if any institution has been cheated or not. If the intention to cheat and the act in pursuance thereof is proved the conviction can be made. 
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18061 Answers
446 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
When a case is aroused then only the remedy is contest the case on merit and produce the evidence in favor of you. It is the duty of prosecution to prove the case so you have to challenge the prosecution case .In your case the allegation leveled against your brother is criminal conspiracy,cheating ,forges a document which purports to be a valuable security AND acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account.

So it is  immaterial if any institution has been cheated or not gained or not , here was no meeting of officials of Bank & Coal India So you have to disprove their allegations
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1905 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1) the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 420/467/471 of the IPC necessarily entail mens rea; the intention has to be gathered from the circumstances built up of the case; the offence of cheating consists of a dishonest inducement as contained in the definition of Section 415 of the IPC; to constitute the offence of cheating it has to be established that the Accused deceived the complainant dishonestly inducing him to part with any property in his favour which he would not have parted but for the deception played on him.

2) in  Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharashtra 1997 SC 3424,  the Supreme Court was of the opinion that where nobody was put in any disadvantageous position or no wrongful gain was caused to anybody nor wrongful loss was caused by appellant's action the appellant should be acquitted
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23125 Answers
1215 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Complaint can be registered based on the information only.

Statement of IO is very much favorable in this case. 120 b is not applicable.
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3522 Answers
129 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Criminal Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13943 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18061 Answers
446 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12043 Answers
228 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5164 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3522 Answers
129 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
868 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
431 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2728 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1905 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Thresiamma G. Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1316 Answers
85 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0