TECHNO DEALERS Vs. RAJESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) By way of the instant Petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC, the Petitioner intends to challenge the proceedings initiated under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act") by the Respondent-Complainant against the Petitioners through Complaint Case No.395/2023 filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.Facts leading to the instant case are that the petitioners have issued two post dated cheques in favour of respondent dtd. 15/12/2022 amounting to Rs.2,50,000.00 and Rs.10,00,000.00 (total of Rs.12,50,000.00)which was dishonoured therefore, the complainant filed complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur under Sec. 138 of the NI Act. During pendency of the complaint case, the petitioners have filed application which was rejected. Against the said order the petitioners have filed criminal revision before the revisional court and the learned revisional court vide its order date 15/5/2024 affirmed the same and dismissed the revision. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dtd. 15/5/2024 by the learned revisions court as well as the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is illegal and against the facts and law. He submits that the both the courts have failed to appreciate the ingredients of the NI Act as the provisions of Sec. 143-A has not been complied with. He submits that the both the courts have failed to see that the petitioner No.2 is not the partner of the M/s. Techno Dealers nor has issued the cheque in favour of the complainant and the petitioner No.1 has already filed application in her favour and produced the partnership deed. In the clause 12 of the said deed, it is clear that if any legal responsibility arises, the Mulchand Jain would be responsible and unfortunately, he died. After his death the complainant fulfilled the blank cheques which got dishonored. He submits that the complainant has misused the cheque issued by late Mulchand Jain for which the petitioner No.2 is not responsible nor she has received any amount from the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had presented the cheques 9 months after the death of Mulchand Jain and therefore he prays that the impugned order dtd. 15/5/2024 passed by the revisional court as well as the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur be quashed. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Susela Padmavathy Amma Vs. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, arising out of Special leave Petition (Criminal) No.12390-12391 of 2022.