- (1.) HEARD lerned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. By means of the instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants are praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated in Complaint Case No. 1370 of 2011 (Satpal Yadav v Sharad Lahoti & others), under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
(2.) IT is evident from a perusal of the record that on request of the applicants, refundable loan amoounting to Rs. 3,70,000.00 was given by complainant/opposite party no. 2, Satpal Yadav for a short period. In discharge of legal liability, Cheque No. 151834 dated 11.01.2011 for the aforesaid amount drawn on HDFC Bank, Ghaziabad was issued by the applicants to the complainant. On presentation of the aforesaid cheque by the complainant on 11.01.2011 it was returned by the Bank with an endoresement of "Payment stopped" on 24.01.2011. Thereafter, the same cheque was presented on 05.05.2011 but this time also it was also dishonoured by the Bank on 19.05.2011 with the endoresement of "Payment stopped". A notice was personally served upon the applicants through the complainant on 28th May 2011 whereby the accused persons were asked to pay the said amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice failing which a criminal complaint shall be launched against them and when even after expiry of the stipulated period of fifteen days, the applicant did not pay heed to the aforesaid notice, the complaint case was instituted against the applicants wherein the learned Magistrate, after recording of the statement of the complainant under section 200 and perusing the return memo from the Bank relating to the cheque impugned, registered notice its acknowledgement and reply of the notice, having been satisfied that prima facie a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments is made out, summoned the applicants vide order dated 05.08.2011 to face trial in the aforesaid section. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that a cheque cannot be presented twice under law. It is next submitted that the impugned cheque was stolen by opposite party no. 2, therefore, an information in this regard was given to the concerned Police Station as well as to the Bank on 25.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that factum of lending Rs. 3,70,000.00 is not denied by the applicant and also the signatrure of the applicant on the cheque in question is not denied. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that a cheque cannot be presented twice has no force. It is well settled that there is no restriction in presentation of any cheque repeatedly and it can be presented at any number of time within the period as stipulated under section 138(1) (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. As far as the stealing of the cheque is concerned, in catena of cases principle of law has been settled by this Court as well as the Apex Court that under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot embark upon the truthfullness of the facts. It is on the learned trial to adjudicate upon the matter.
(3.) KEEPING in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. The application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.;