KANCHAN RANI Vs. ROHIT MITTAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-92
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 03,2013

Kanchan Rani Appellant
VERSUS
Rohit Mittal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 08.02.2013 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to summon the present petitioner in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that a cheque bearing no. 928060 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 09.08.2012 of Rs. 4,00,000/- was issued in favour of "Rock Strong Cement & Tile Industries". Cheque was presented for encashment, however, it was returned by the Bank on 09.08.2012 with an endorsement "exceed arrangement". Statutory notice was issued to the petitioner herein on 14.08.2012 demanding the cheque amount; notice was received by the petitioner on 23.08.2012; petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount; feeling aggrieved, complaint was filed before the Magistrate, which was registered as criminal case no. 368 of 2012. Learned Magistrate, thereafter, vide impugned order was pleased to summon the present petitioner.
(3.) Mr. M.C. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that cheque was issued in favour of "Rock Strong Cement & Tile Industries", which is a proprietor firm, therefore, complaint could have been filed only by the proprietor of the firm, on the principle that complaint can be filed only by payee or holder of the cheque. Accordingly to Mr. Bansal, only proprietor of the proprietor firm can be said to be holder or payee of the cheque and not any other officer of the proprietor firm.;


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