SANDEEP BADOUNI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-77
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 21,2013

Sandeep Badouni Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

U.C. Dhyani, J. - (1.) The applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the cognizance order dated 16.07.2008, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate II, Haridwar in complaint case no. 410 of 2008, captioned as Nikhil Malhotra vs Sandeep Badouni . The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of complaint case no. 410 of 2008, pending before learned Special Judicial Magistrate II, Haridwar.
(2.) Complainant / respondent no. 2 Nikhil Malhotra filed a complaint case against the applicant in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, he was running business in the name of Amba Trading Company in Sector II Barrier, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. He was the sole proprietor of Amba Trading Company. Accused-applicant Sandeep Badouni was the proprietor of Priyanshi Enterprises, who dealt with in the business of confectionery. On 20.12.2007, the accused purchased sweetmeat and salt from the Firm of the complainant and assured the complainant that he will pay the money to him within 1-2 days. When the accused did not pay the money and complainant demanded the same from him, accused issued two cheques to the complainant. The first cheque no. 205956 issued on 24.12.2007 was worth Rs. 14,784/- and the second cheque no. 205955 issued on 25.12.2007 was worth Rs. 15,000/-, both of Punjab National Bank, branch Ajabpur Kalan, Dehradun. When the said cheques were presented to the bank for encashment, they were returned with the endorsement insufficiency of funds. Both the cheques were dishonoured. When the complainant informed the accused about the same, the accused again assured the complainant that the complainant should present those cheques after sometime so that they may be honoured. When the said cheques were again presented to the bank concerned, the cheques were again returned with the same endorsement of insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued a notice to the accused, through his Advocate, on 05.05.2008, but the notice was returned unserved. The complainant accused the applicant of committing forgery with him.
(3.) After recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the applicant was summoned to face the trial in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 16.07.2008. Learned Magistrate, in his order dated 16.07.2008, has indicated, what the complainant said in his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate also relied upon the papers submitted by the complainant in this behalf. Accused-applicant Sandeep Badouni was thus summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved against the said order, applicant Sandeep Badouni preferred this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.;


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