ANIL RAWAT & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Anil Rawat And Others
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 29.04.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No.2131 of 2008 titled as Mukul Dev vs. M/s Sigma Hardware Networking Institute & others under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicants also seek to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court.
(2.) A criminal complaint case was filed by respondent no.2/Mukul Dev against four accused persons, including the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After recording of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. coupled with the filing of the documentary evidence, accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the offences under Section 138 of the Act, vide impugned order dated 29.04.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved.
(3.) It was stated by the complainant that he alongwith Anil Rawat, Sharad Bansal and Kapil Singhal constituted a partnership firm in the name of M/s Sigma Hardware Networking Institute. A reconstitution deed was executed on 01.04.2006. On 07.05.2007, a retirement deed was executed, in as much as, respondent no.2 withdrew from the said partnership firm. Anil Rawat and Kapil Singhal gave a cheque bearing no.688911 dated 15.04.2007 of Rs.15 lakhs to the respondent no.2 in respect of the outstanding dues, which respondent no.2 owned against the applicants. When the said cheque was presented in the bank, the same was dishonoured. The bank informed respondent no.2 on 08.08.2007 that the cheque could not be honoured because of insufficiency of funds . Respondent no.2 gave a registered notice to the applicants through his counsel on 16.08.2007, but inspite of the service of notice upon the applicants, they did not pay him the money. Respondent no.2 placed original cheque, computerized copy of the notice, receipts of postal authorities, receipt of the depositing the cheque in the bank, etc., which shows that the legal requirements of Section 138 of the Act were complied with. The court below has appropriately dealt with the same in the impugned order. He has recorded a finding that the complaint was within the jurisdiction of that court and was filed within time. Having found a prima facie case to proceed against the applicants for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the accused applicants were summoned by the court below to face the trial. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order. There is no reason to interfere in the same in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.