H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions No. 154/2006 and 166/2006 under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the orders dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) and by S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 662/2006 the order dated 8-5-2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act" hereinafter) have been challenged.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the memos of criminal miscellaneous petitions and the ground taken, therein, as also the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioners. It appears that the main ground taken in the memo of criminal miscellaneous petitions is that the respondent failed to prove the sales taxes having been entered in the register and having been paid. For the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the requirement is issuing of the cheque by a person to the another person, presentation of the cheque to the bank and if it is dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of drawee then to give statutory notice demanding payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period and if within the statutory period the person issuing, the cheque fails to pay the cheque amount then the cause of action accrues for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Act.
(3.) FROM a perusal of the memo of the criminal miscellaneous petitions, prima jade the requirements for construing an offence under Section 138 of the Act are found to have been made out. Therefore, in my considered view, there is sufficient material and ground to proceed against the petitioners for the offence under Sec tion 138 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in taking, cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and issuing proc- ess. It cannot be said that the impugned order would result in serious injustice or abuse of process of the Court warranting interference under Section 482 "of the Code. The power under Section 482 of the Code are to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in rarest of rare case as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The case in hand is not a case of such nature.;