- (1.) - Jai Gopal Khanna, Proprietor M/s Eastern Engineering Corporation, faridabad, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code), for quashing the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the summoning order dated 3. 5. 1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar (Annexure P-7 ).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the M/s Eastern Engineering Corporation has taken on rent an Industrial shed plot No. 101, Sector 6, Faridabad from M/s j. K. Engineering Works, Industrial Area, Jalandhar, at a monthly rent of Rs. 810/-including all taxes. The landlord has been residing at Jalandhar and visiting Faridabad, on one pretext or the other to harass the petitioner in order to get the premises vacated. The respondent had filed a writ petition at Faridabad against the petitioner, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Faridabad. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a cheque of Rs. 810/- dated 8. 12. 1992 drawn on UCO Bank, NIT Faridabad towards the rent for the month of December, 1992 but this cheque was returned to the respondent with the remarks 'referred to Drawer'. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice on 21. 1. 1993 under Section 138 of the Act stating therein that the cheque of rs. 810/- was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. On receipt of notice, the petitioner immediately sent reply enclosing a Bank Draft for Rs. 810/- bearing No. 520784 drawn on the UCO Bank, Jalandhar against the dishonoured cheque of Rs. 810/- through registered letter dated 1. 2. 1993. Copy of the reply sent is annexure P-2. The registered letter sent by the petitioner was received back un-delivered and thereafter the petitioner again sent the same draft through another registered letter to the respondent who re fused to accept the registered cover on 15. 2. 1993. A photocopy of the registered cover is Ex. P-5.
(3.) NOTICE of this petition was given to the respondent who filed reply alleged therein that the contents of para 1 needs no reply; that contents of para 2 are admitted to the extent that the respondent is residing at Jalandhar. The rest of the contents of this para were vehemently denied. In reply to para No. 3 he submitted that the contents of this para are futile and meaningless and as such require no reply. In reply to para no. 4 it has been stated that the contents of this para are admitted to the extent of sending the cheque and dishonouring of the same. The rest of the contents of this para are denied and it is submitted that the cheque was returned due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner. In reply to para No. 6 of the petition, it is submitted that the contents of this para except the filing of the complaint are denied. It is further submitted in reply to para No. 6 that the petitioner has unnecessarily in dulged in creating some sort of fabricated record which is meaningless and that the petitioner failed to make good the payment of the dishonoured cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice as sent out in Section 138 of the Act and thus he is liable to be proceeded against and punished thereunder. He further stated that the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner require to be proved during the course of his defence at trial and as such cannot be relied upon here at this stage. It is further submitted that even otherwise, no additional material beyond what is there on the record of the trial court can be looked into under Section 482 of the Code and as such the petitioner can only set out his defence referred to in this para during the trial and not in the instant proceedings. In reply to para 7 of the petition the respondent further stated that the contents of the para are frivolous as the banker is not required to be examined during preliminary evidence. It is further submitted that the certificate issued by the Bank sought to be relied upon by the petitioner requires to be proved under the Indian Evidence Act and is not per se admissible. The reply of the respondent to para No. 8 of the petition reads as under :-"that the contents of this para are admitted to the extent of the passing of the summoning order. While denying the rest of the para it is submitted that the summoning order was passed by the learned Magistrate after due consideration of the material on record in accordance with law. ";