MALTI NAUTIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-1-6
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on January 04,2012

MALTINAUTIYAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By means of this petition moved under Section 482/483 Cr.P.C., a prayer has been made to quash entire proceedings Criminal Case No. 857 of 2007 titled as Murlidhar Tiwari Vs. Malti Nautiyal pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. In the said case, order of cognizance was passed on dated 05.10.2007 asking Malti Nautiyal to stand trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as Act ).
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, it transpires that cheque no. 436712 drawn from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ranipur, Haridwar worth Rs. 1,00,000/- was given by Malti Nautiyal to Murlidhar Tiwari in consideration of work, which had to be done by Murlidhar Tiwari pertaining to supply of electricity, water and road construction in certain area of village Jwalapur bearing plots no. 10, 11, 31, 9, 52. This cheque was handed over under an unregistered agreement executed on 30.12.2006 on the revenue stamp paper of Rs. 100. Murlidhar Tiwari was rendered a liberty to present this cheque for encashment, as and when, above stated work is completed by him. It is alleged that the said cheque was undated and Murlidhar Tiwari mentioning the date 13.07.2007 presented the same for encashment through his banker on 23.07.2007. The cheque returned unpaid on 25.07.2007 with an endorsement insufficiency of fund in the concerned Account No. 1335.
(3.) Murlidhar Tiwari issued a notice as envisaged under Section 138 (b) of the Act on dated 08.08.2007, which was not soon replied by Malti Nautiyal so he filed Criminal Case No. 857 of 2007 on dated 04.09.2007 under Section 138 of the Act and 420 IPC. Learned Magistrate, having gone through the contents of the complaint as well as statement of Murlidhar Tiwari nay the documentary evidence, took cognizance of the matter for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and did not find any sufficient reason to summon accused person for the offence under Section 420 IPC.;


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