- (1.) This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 10.9.2009, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Allahabad as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 389 of 2009 (Girija Prasad v. Shri Apurva), under sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which is herein after referred to as "the Act") and 420 IPC, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad pending in the Court aforesaid. List has been revised. Despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2-Girija Prasad. Shri Siddharth, learned Counsel for the applicants is present along with learned AGA. This application is of year 2010. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further procrastinate the matter. Pleadings have already been exchanged. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record and with the assistance of the learned AGA representing the State.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the basic facts of the case are enumerated below: "The two sons of the complainant were engaged in a contract work given by the accused-applicant. It is alleged that ' Two Lacs were asked by the applicant from them. But as the amount was large they could not lend the aforesaid money. Thereafter, the accused approached the complainant, who is the father, and importuned before him for the same favour. In good faith, the complainant lent the aforesaid amount of money to the applicant after managing the same. Thereafter, when the money was not returned within the time promised, the complainant pleaded with the applicant and pressed to return the same. On this, the cheque No. 383015 dated 4.5.2009 amounting to ' Two Lacs was issued by the accused-applicant which was drawn on the United Commercial Bank, Renukoot, Sonbhadra. When the aforesaid cheque was presented by the complainant in Dena Bank, Allahabad, the same got bounced and got dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds. When the complainant brought this fact to the notice of the accused, he tried to explain the event somehow and gave assurance to him. The cheque was again presented on 2.6.2009 but met with the same fate. Thereafter, when the matter was again taken up with the accused applicant, it was pleaded that for certain reasons the money could not come in the account of the accused. Therefore, having trust in the assurance again the cheque was presented for the third time on 15.6.2009 by the complainant but it is alleged that the accused applicant instructed the Bank not to pay and honour the cheque. The details about the dishonouring of the cheque for the third time as to when it was presented and how the desired amount firstly came in the account and then how the stop payment was done by the applicant, have all been given in the complaint and are not needed to be reproduced at any great length here again."
(3.) Suffice it to mention that when in this regard the Bank Manager was approached by the complainant, he was apprised about the stop-payment instruction given on behalf of the applicants. Under these circumstances, the complainant had to resort to the legal proceedings and, as was required, he sent a notice on the accused applicant, through his Counsel by way of a registered post on 25.6.2009 wherein the accused was requested to make the payment good within fifteen days. The notice did not yield any result, therefore, the complainant brought the present complaint in-question against the applicant.;