RAJESH DAYAL KHARE, J. - (1.)HEARD Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri R.P. Srivastava and Sri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Sharad Malaviya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.
(2.)THE present 482,Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 1321 of 2009 (Amar Nath Vaish Vs. N.G. Gupta) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Kotwali District Allahabad.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 15.5.2006, the applicant had issued a cheque no. 000130 for Rs. 1,50,000.00 to the opposite party no.2, copy of which has been filed as annexure-2 to the affidavit; that the opposite party no. 2 had tempered the said cheque and changed the year from 2006 to 2008, thereafter presented the same to the Bank for payment, which was returned unpaid. Thereafter, notice was given to the applicant no.2 by the opposite party no.2 on 8.12.2008, which was allegedly served upon the applicant on 9.12.2008 but payment was not made thereafter also, copy of notice has been filed as annexure-3 to the affidavit; that aforesaid notice was neither served upon the applicant nor the detail of cheque number was specified. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, and after recording the statement of complainant and witnesses, summoned the applicant; that although the matter was fixed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on number of occasions but summons were not served upon the applicant, therefore, the applicant could not appear; that on 4.11.2010 matter was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate III, Allahabad, who fixed 15.1.2011 in the matter but as the summons were not served upon the applicant, the matter was again adjourned for 25.6.2011, on which date without ascertaining about the service of notice upon the applicant, bailable warrant was issued against the applicant to ensure the presence of the applicant; that neither summons nor bailable warrant has been served upon the applicant; that the applicant came to known about the pendency of the case on 17.3.2012 when the news item was published in the news daily that bailable warrant has been issued against the Ex Minister, as such, present application has been filed.

(3.)LEARNED counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to annexure-1 to the affidavit, whereby in paragraph no.1 it has been stated that cheque of Rs. 1,50,000.00 bearing number 000130 was given by the applicant to the opposite party no.2, which was returned back unpaid. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of this Court to annexure-2 to the affidavit, which is photocopy of cheque and has argued that said cheque was issued on behalf of Krishna Departmental Store but Krishna Departmental Store has not been made party in the complaint. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Anil Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., reported in JT 2012 (4) SC 489, in support of his contention. Reference has also been drawn to annexure-3 to the affidavit, which is a notice, which was alleged to have been sent to the applicant by the opposite party no.2 and it is argued that in paragraph no.1, the cheque number is mentioned as 211016004, which is not the cheque, which was issued by the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. L. Ram Kumar, reported in 1959 AIR (Ald) 168, in support of his contention.