- (1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State of U.P. None appeared on behalf of complainant despite the case having been called in revise. Since it is an old matter, hence, I proceed to decide this application after hearing aforesaid counsels.
(2.) Application No. 12606 of 2004 has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") by accused-applicant Mahesh Chandra Maheshwari with a prayer to quash summoning order dated 21.11.2000 and another order dated 15.11.2004 whereby objection filed by accused-applicant against order of summoning has been rejected.
(3.) Facts, in brief, giving rise to the Application No. 12606 of 2004 are that M/s Bhadohi Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Cooperative Bank") advanced a loan to applicant for a running medical shop. In discharge of aforesaid loan, applicant issued cheques No. 823486 and 823487 dated 29.03.2007 for Rs.50,000/-, each, in favour of Cooperative Bank drawn on Union Bank of India, Varanasi. Cheques were deposited by Cooperative Bank for collection on 24.08.2000 but Union Bank returned the same vide Memo dated 24.08.2000 with the remark that fund was insufficient in the account of applicant. In substance, both cheques were dishonoured. Notice was given by Cooperative Bank to applicant on 06.09.2000 which was returned on 14.09.2000 as unclaimed. Complaint was filed by Cooperative Bank on 31.10.2000 whereafter Magistrate recorded statements of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned accused-applicant for trial for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1881"). Accused-applicant filed objection to the summoning order dated 21.11.2000 on the ground that he has nothing to do with M/s Hedes Multi Facets since he is not the proprietor of the said firm and as per address given, there existed a firm in the name of Maheshwari and Maheshwari since 1975 which is a joint family business and accused-applicant is not the owner of said firm also. He further said that he had not taken any loan from Cooperative Bank in his name. Loan, in fact was advanced to one Ajita Prasad Pandey son of late Kailash Nath Pandey, resident of village Bhawanipur, Police Station Gopi Ganj, District Ravidas Nagar who has taken loan by forging documents in the name of applicant and, therefore, applicant is not liable to pay any amount. He also raised objection that complaint was not maintainable having been filed by Assistant Manager who was not authorized by any Letter of Authorization or Resolution of Board of Directors of Cooperative Bank. He also contended that proceedings were initiated beyond the period prescribed under Section 138(b) of Act, 1881, inasmuch as, dishonoured cheques were returned to complainant on 24.08.2000, notice was issued on 06.09.2000 which was received back unclaimed on 14.09.2000 but complaint was filed on 31.10.2000, hence, it was barred by period of limitation prescribed under Section 142(b) of Act, 1881.;