NAVEEN HOSIERY Vs. CAPT SEWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26. 5. 1992 Capt. Sewa Singh respondent filed complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, against the petitioners for an offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable instruments Act, on the allegations that the present petitioners approached him for financial assistance for the purchase of machinery and took a friendly loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- from him. In order to return the amount they issued four cheques i. e. two cheques for Rs. 27,000/- each were issued on 11. 10. 1991 which were payable at central Bank of India, Mani Majra, 3rd cheque for Rs. 45,000/- was issued on 20. 10. 1991 payable at Punjab and Sind Bank at Mani Majra and 4th cheque was dated 14. 12. 1991 and was for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. All these cheques were presented for encashment with his bankers i. e. Punjab and Sind Bank, Mani Majra, for collection of money but the same were returned unpaid with the reports that there were not sufficient funds and 'refer to drawer'. Thereafter a legal notice dated 25. 4. 1992 was served under registered cover upon the petitioners which was received by them. No payment was ever made. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the above referred complaint Annexure P/1 and summoning order dated 1. 8. 1992 annexure P/2 and all further proceedings thereunder pending in the Court of Judicial magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE petitioners made averments in the petition that there was a dispute between them and the respondent regarding some amount which was obtained by them under a scheme floated by the complainant-respondent and the same was refunded in daily instalments of Rs. 300/ -. Again a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was obtained by the petitioner firm and it was refunded vide four cheques out of which last cheque of Rs. 5,000/- could not be encashed. When it came to their notice, the amount was paid in cash in two instalments. The complaint and further proceedings were liable to be quashed as the cheques were presented after six months and no notice was served within 15 days from the date of dishonour of cheques. The summoning order was passed without applying mind and it was cryptic and non-speaking.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondent this fact was denied that the petitioners paid any amount and it was maintained that the cheques were presented in the bank within stipulated period on 8. 4. 1991. The notice sent to the respondents was proper as it was sent within 15 days of the receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheques as unpaid.