R.K.RASTOGI, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr. PC. for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1588 of 2002, M/s. Annapurna Impex v. Smt. Sunita Agrawal, pending before the C.J.M. Gyanpur Bhadohi under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application under Section 482 Cr. PC. are that M/s. Annapurna Impex Khamariya, the complainant opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint against the accused applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with these allegations that a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- of the complainant was outstanding against the accused applicant. The complainant asked the applicant to pay back the amount. Then she gave a Cheque of Rs. 3,80,000/- to the complainant on 2.7.2000. The said Cheque was presented by the complainant in the Bank on 2.7.2000 but the Bank returned the Cheque with the remark of insufficient funds. The complainant asked the accused about dishonour of cheque then she replied that sufficient amount shall be deposited in the Account shortly and then the Cheque may again be presented for payment. Then the complainant continued to make inquiry about the funds in the Account of the accused but since no money was received in that Account, the complainant sent a notice to the accused on 27.8.2002 by registered post. It was received by the accused on 31.8.02. Then the complainant again sent the Cheque to the Bank and the Bank informed the complainant on 2.9.02 that there was no amount in the Account. In this way she has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant has alleged in the application under Section 482, Cr. PC. that the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act were not complied with and so the complaint was not maintainable. No counter affidavit was filed either by the opposite Party No. 1 or by the opposite Party No. 2. Learned Counsel for the opposite Party No. 2 was present in the Court at the time of arguments and he stated before the Court that he did not propose to file any counter affidavit but he was ready for arguments.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;