SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. -
(1.) BY way of this petition moved under Section 482, IPC, a prayer has
been made to quash the summoning order dated 23.6.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 547 of 2004 titled as Vinod Prasad Raturi v. Shyam
Sunder. The said order of cognizance was passed for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity hereinafter called as 'Act').
(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Shyam Sunder drew two cheques from his Bankers and gave them to Vinod Prasad Khanduri, as a measure of security. First cheque dated 20.1.2004 worth Rs.
15,000/- was drawn from State Bank of India, Rajpur Road, Dehradun and second one dated 7.9.2003 worth Rs. 4,000/- drawn from State Bank of India, Dharampur Branch, Dehradun. These cheques were issued in lieu of debt of Rs. 19,000/- taken by Shyam Sunder from Vinod
Prasad Khanduri. Vinod Prasad Khanduri submitted first cheque through his Banker for
encashment, which was returned on 22.1.2004 with a memo of dishonour due to insufficiency of
fund. So he issued a notice on dated 5.2.2004, as envisaged under Section 138(b) of the Act. The
second cheque was returned on 6.2.2004 with an endorsement of insufficiency of fund. On
13.2.2004, a separate notice was issued under Section 13 8 (b) of the Act demanding the money. Both the notices could not yield any result then he filed impugned Criminal Complaint Case on
22.3.2004. Learned Magistrate, having gone through the contents of the complaint as well as statement of complainant nay other documentary evidence, passed the impugned order dated
It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that there were two causes of action arose by dishonour of two different cheques, bearing different dates and dishonoured by two different
Banks. Two separate notices were issued under Section 138(b) of the Act so one complaint for
two causes of action cannot be filed.
(3.) THIS argument has been refuted by learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 with a contention that liability for discharge, by issuing two cheques, was single so this way there was a single cause
of action and there is nothing wrong in filing a single complaint for dishonour of two cheques, as
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.