NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J. - (1.) HEARD , the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THE instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no.3345 of 2009, Arun Kumar Singh Vs. Sana Ullah Siddiqui, under Section 138 N. I. Act, P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face the trial. The applicant had purchased and financed a vehicle namely Mahindra Max on 23.3.2005 from the company namely Mahindra & Mahindra had only to the extent of rupees three lacs which was to be repaid by the applicant on 32 equal installments as Rs.3,80,910/-. A cheque was issued by the applicant dated 27.2.2009 bearing no.0411807 of Rs.6, 80,522/- and when it was submitted in the bank for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficient fund. The legal notice was given by the opposite party no.2 on 30.3.2009 for the payment of the money but no payment was done by the applicant. Therefore a complaint was filed on 30.4.2009 enclosing the receipts of notice, the original copy of the cheque and the report of the bank which was registered as complaint case no.3345 of 2009. The court below on the basis of statement of the complainant and evidence adduced in support of complaint prima facie found offence under Section 138 N. I. Act has been made against the applicant and as such passed the impugned summoning order to face the trial.
(3.) IT is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not purchased any vehicle as mentioned in the complaint. Neither he has paid any cheque nor any notice has been served upon him in re spect of the payment of the amount of cheque which was dishonoured and the complaint has been filed with false allegation. Even the notice has not given the parentage of the complainant. He came to know only when he received a phone call from Lucknow. When he inquired from R.T.O. it is revealed that some other person has managed to obtain and purchase the vehicle and the applicant had been falsely implicated in the present case. In these circumstances the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant is an abuse of the process of court.;