SHRIDHAR Vs. SAKRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a private complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N I Act alleging that the cheques which were issued by the accused in favour of the complainant when presented for realization were dishonoured for want of funds. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement took the cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The respondent " " complainant though served with notice remained absent.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint was filed alleging that the cheques were issued by the accused for having supplied maze, which is evident from the invoice dtd. 15/1/2021 and by the time, the cheques were presented for realization, the validity of the said cheques had expired. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Babu Xavier " "vsLalchand Munoth (1990 (2) MWN (Cr.)).