RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) BY means of this petition, prayer has been made
to quash the order of cognizance dated 17.3.2006 as well as
the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.
43/2006, Soorvir Singh v. Rajendra Singh, pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. By the said
order of cognizance, the petitioner has been summoned to
stand trial for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, hereinafter called as
the 'Act ').
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention that none has turned up on behalf of the complainant/respondent no. 2 despite
sufficient service; neither any counter affidavit has been
filed on his behalf. So, this Court extended hearing to
learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Brief Holder
for the State.
It transpires that a complaint was filed by Mr. Soorvir Singh Negi (respondent no. 2) against the petitioner
on 6.3.2006 with the allegation that a debt of Rs.
(3.) ,09,000.00 was due to payable by Mr. Rejendra Kumar Singhal to the complainant, wherefor the petitioner issued a 2
cheque bearing no. 263336 drawn at Bank of Baroda,
Rishikesh Branch, pertaining to his Savings Account No.
3584. When the said cheque was submitted for encashment by Mr. Negi through his banker State Bank of India, Borari
Branch, District Tehri Garhwal, the same was dishonoured
by concerned bank due to insufficient fund in the account
of the drawer of the cheque. The memo of the bank along
with the unpaid cheque was received by Mr. Negi on
21.12.2005. Thereafter Mr. Negi issued a notice as envisaged under Section 138(b) of the Act to Mr. Singhal,
which was deliberately not received by Mr. Singhal. So, the
notice was returned back to Mr. Negi, who subsequently
filed the impugned complaint against Mr. Singhal for the
offences punishable under Section 138 of the Act read with
Section 420 IPC.
4. The complainant, Mr. Negi, got himself examined under Section 200 CrPC. Thereafter the learned Magistrate
passed the impugned order of cognizance dated 17.3.2006
asking the petitioner to stand trial for the offence under
Section 138 of the Act. However, the learned Magistrate did
not find sufficient cause to summon the accused petitioner
for the offence under Section 420 IPC and dismissed the
complaint under Section 203 CrPC. Feeling disgruntled, the
accused petitioner Mr. Singhal has come up before this
Court by filing this petition under Section 482 CrPC.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.