ARUMUGHAM Vs. HARI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought to quash the proceeding initiated against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ("N.I. Act" for short) on technical grounds.

(2.) Petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent and in repayment thereof, had issued a cheque in the name of the respondent-Sri Hari Kumar. He also does not dispute that when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonored by the Bank for insufficient funds.

(3.) The contentions urged by the petitioner is that on receipt of the legal notice, he requested the respondent not to present the said cheque for two months. The said request was made by him orally on 26.02.2011 and the complainant himself admits that such a request was made by the petitioner/accused, but, before the expiry of said two months, the complainant presented the cheque for encashment. Therefore, the dishonor of the cheque does not give rise to a cause of action to the complainant to take action under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gopal Krishan & Another vs. Rameshwar Dass, reported in, 1996 2 BankCas 492 wherein, it is held that