Bharat Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Mr Bal Mukund Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.
(2.) By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant seeks quashing of the Bailable Warrant Dated 10.4.2015 and impugned summoning order dated 9.12.2011 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 446 of 2011 (Jagdish Narayan Singh v. Nagendra Kumar Pathak), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria. It is contended by the applicant that no offence under Section 138 NI Act is made against the applicant as the applicant himself had given instruction for stop payment and therefore no offence is made out against the applicant?
(3.) So far as the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, same is misplaced. The Apex Court in the case of Pulsive Technologies P. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 9 SCALE 437 has already held that instruction of "stop payment" issued to the banker could be sufficient to make the accused liable for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Earlier also the Apex Court in Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, (1998) 3 SCC 249 this Court has clarified that if a cheque is dishonoured because of stop payment instruction even then offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act gets attracted.;