Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) DHARMINDER Kumar has filed the present petition by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for quashing of complaint titled "Tilak Raj Sharma Vs. Dharminder Kumar" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (in short 'the Act') (Annexure P1), summoning order and proceedings emanating therefrom.
(2.) THE respondent, Tilak Raj Sharma filed the complaint on the allegations that in discharge of legally enforceable debt, the accused (petitioner herein) issued cheque of Rs. 39,000/ - dated 22.12.2011 drawn on his account No. 1/77 in the Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Ropar which got dishonoured on its presentation to the bank with the remarks "Refer to Drawer" vide memo dated 08.02.2012 and the accused failed to make payment of cheque amount despite receipt of statutory legal notice dated 25.02.2012. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the year 2006, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act which was later withdrawn by him on 09.02.2011 in view of his statement recorded by the Court on 09.02.2011 (Annexure P3). It is argued with vehemence that as the complainant had already received the amount, subject matter of the complaint which was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.02.2011, there was no occasion for the petitioner to issue the cheque in dispute in discharge of his liability qua the said proceedings. Further submitted that the respondent obtained number of blank signed cheques in connection with purchase of a vehicle and he misused the cheque in dispute by presentation in the bank and thereafter initiated the criminal proceedings. The petitioner filed a civil suit before the Court at Anandpur Sahib for directing the respondent and others to return 18 blank signed cheques including the cheque in dispute and said litigation is pending in the Court.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent, on the contrary, has submitted that the statement made by the respondent in the earlier proceedings under the Act does not create any bar against issuance of a cheque by the petitioner in favour of the respondent to discharge his legally enforceable liability. It is further submitted that the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioner cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, therefore, the petitioner should be relegated to raise all available pleas before the trial Court.;