RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-39
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on April 16,2012

RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.