R.D. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) THE applicant, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 25.10.2008 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 4037 of 2007 titled as Small Industrial Development Bank of India v. R.D. Sharma & Others under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said Court. Complainant/respondent No. 2 (Bank) filed a criminal complaint case against 4 accused persons, including the present applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. After considering the statements under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C., accused -applicant was summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, vide order dated 25.10.2008. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of accused -applicant.
(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant/respondent No. 2, the applicant placed a purchase -work order to M/s. Saksham -e -Communication Pvt. Ltd. on 19.11.2006. The supply was to be financed by the respondent Bank. M/s. Saksham -e -Communication Pvt. Ltd. was financed by the complainant Bank on the assurance that the payment was to be released in favour of the said Bank by the accused -applicant. In pursuance of this understanding, the Finance Officer of Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar (non -applicant) issued a cheque in favour of the complainant/respondent Bank for a sum of Rs. 21,94,000/ -. When such cheque was presented by the complainant Bank through Axis Bank for encashment on 1.9.2007, the same was returned with the endorsement "reported lost". Upon request of the Finance Officer of Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar, the said cheque was again presented on 6.9.2007, but was again returned with the remarks "reported lost". The cheque was finally presented on 13.9.2007 and the same was again returned with the endorsement of "payment stopped". The complainant Bank (respondent No. 2 herein) gave a notice to Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar on 18.9.2007, but despite the expiry of notice period, the Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya failed to pay the amount to the respondent Bank. Thus, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act were initiated against the accused -applicant on the ground that when the cheque issued by Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar was presented in the Bank, the same was returned with the endorsement "reported lost".
(3.) THE question is: Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Act, in such circumstances, is made out or not?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.