DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. VARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned is passed in revision by the XIVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indoe, quashing the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act), against the respondent, framed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, in Cr. Case No. 275/93.

(2.) For the purposes of this petition it is no more in dispute that respondent accused had issued a cheque for Rs. 65,000/- in favour of the applicant complainant. On presentation the cheque was returned by the Bank unpaid with the remark that the signature of the drawer do not tally with his specimen signature available with the Bank. As per advice of the respondent accused, the complainantre-presented the cheque with the Bank, but the same was again returned unpaid with the similar remark. A demand notice as required by Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act was served on the respondent but the amount still remained unpaid. The Complainant, therefore, filed complaint before the Magistrate alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act by the respondents accused. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offence against the respondent and on his appearance proceeded to explain particulars of the offence to him under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved by the action of the Magistrate the respondent accused preferred revision before the Sessions Court which was allowed and the complaint against the respondent was quashed vide order impugned thus giving rise to this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has quashed the complaint mainly on the ground that the cheque in question was not dishonoured either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account of the drawer is insufficient or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account under same agreement with the Bank. Return of cheque on account of non-tally of signature of the drawer did not in the opinion of learned A.S.J., constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Reasoning given by the learned A.S.J., in my opinion, is wholly unsustainable in law.