ANIL GUPTA Vs. JAL SINGH RANA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Jal Singh Rana
Click here to view full judgement.
U.C. Dhyani, J. -
(1.) The applicant, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seeks to quash the impugned summoning order dated 05.10.2010 in Criminal Case No. 2521 of 2010, Jal Singh Rana v. Anil Gupta , under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, District Haridwar.
(2.) A criminal complaint case under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was filed by the complainant (respondent herein) against the accused (applicant herein) in the Court of 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. After the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the form of an affidavit and on filing of documentary evidence by the complainant, the accused was summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vide order dated 05.10.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred.
(3.) According to the complainant (respondent herein), the accused (applicant herein) gave a cheque dated 28.01.2010 of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant. The accused also told the complainant that he should submit the cheque in the last week of July, 2010 for clearance. When the complainant presented such cheque in Bank of India, branch of Roorkee, on 26.07.2010, then the same was returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds. The complainant contacted the accused, but he did not give satisfactory reply. The money was also not paid by the accused to the complainant either. When the cheque was dishonoured, the complainant sent the registered notice through his counsel to the accused, which notice was served upon the accused, but in spite of that he did not pay the required amount to the complainant. The complainant filed a photocopy of multi-city cheque dated 28th January, 2010 issued in favour of him saying that the accused promised to pay him a sum of Rs.5 lacs vide the aforesaid cheque. The cheque return memo (annexure 4) was also filed to indicate that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground that no sufficient funds were there in the bank account of the accused. Registered notice sent by the counsel for the complainant is also enclosed as annexure 5.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.