CHANDA SHUKLA Vs. SUDHIR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The instant petition is against the revisional order dated 23.12.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Sarguja (Ambikapur) in Criminal Revision No. 26/2014, wherein the order to take cognizance under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act, 1881' by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarguja (Ambikapur) dated 17.9.2013 was set aside.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a cheque was given by the company namely N.B. Plantation Limited in lieu of the maturity of amount of bond. However, when the cheque was lodged with the Bank, the same was dis-honoured with an endorsement that the account was closed and no averment was there in the account. Consequently, a complaint was filed under section 138 of the Act, 1881 and the Court of JMFC on such complaint had taken cognizance against all the accused named therein. Thereafter, one of the respondent against whom the cognizance was taken had filed a revision on the grounds that no averments were made against the applicant as to what was the role played by that accused for issuance of summons. On such revision, the Revisional Court had quashed the complaint against that accused on the ground that no pleading was made against the respondent as to how he was responsible to issue the cheque. The said order of Revisional Court is under challenge. It is contended by the petitioner that the order of the Court of JMFC was well merited about taking of the cognizance and Revisional Court has committed an error to quash the same at the threshold. It is stated that the order of Revisional Court suffers with illegality since complaint was at the primary stage, therefore, the fact that who was responsible for issuing such cheque could not be decided by the Revisional Court without any trial.