DINESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) This Civil Misc. Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer that the proceedings of Complaint Case No.586/IX/2014 (Jai Kumar Nigam Vs. Indra Anand Shukla @ Goldee Shukla), under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Banda be set aside and consequently the summoning order dated 26.03.2015 directing the accused-petitioner to face trial be also set aside.
(2.) Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner states that an overwriting has been made on the date of the cheque to bring it within the time limit by overwriting '4' in place of '3' in the cheque allegedly issued by him in favour of opposite party no.2 because initially the said cheque bore the date 01.07.2013 and it has been made to appear to have been issued on 01.07.2014 by the said overwriting. Had the cheque been taken to have been issued on 01.07.2013 the same would be time barred as the time for presentation for a cheque before the bank is only 90 days. Further it is argued that the said wrong has been committed in collusion with the Officers of the SBI. Normally if a cheque bears overwriting, the same is not received by the Bank Authorities but in this case the said cheque which had clear overwriting, was taken and it was reported that the accused-petitioner did not have money in his account on the date when the said cheque was issued and, hence it bounced/was dishonoured.
(3.) The record has been perused. Opposite party no.2 has moved a complaint on 15.09.2014 before the court below stating that the accused-petitioner had received Rs.1,30,000/- (one lac thirty thousands) in cash from him which was returned by him through cheque no.529139 on 01.07.2014 drawn on the SBI Branch against Khata No.30826742180. The said cheque was presented by him before the SBI for being encashed but it was reported that due to insufficient amount in the account of accused-petitioner, it could not be encashed. Thereafter opposite party no.2 gave an information regarding this fact to the accused-petitioner on 11.08.2014 and also sent a notice informing him about this fact through registered post on 23.08.2014. Even then when the payment was not made the complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 on 15.09.2014. The record further reveals that the complainant had got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in which he supported the version given in the complaint and after its consideration the court below summoned the accused-petitioner (Indra Anand Shukla @ Goldee Shukla) to face trial under Section 138 N.I. Act, vide order dated 26.03.2015 (impugned order).;