SANDEEP KHANNA AND ANR. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Sandeep Khanna, sole proprietor of M/s. Kripa Overseas, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) for quashing of the order dated 26th April, 2006 taking cognizance and summoning him in the Complaint Case No. 1965/2005 titled 'NAFED v. Kripa Overseas' filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short).

(2.) NAFED has filed the said complaint on account of dishonour of cheque No. 411372 drawn on Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, of Rs. 10 crores. The cheque was presented for encashment on 19th October, 2005. The allegation made in the complaint is that the petitioner had approached the NAFED in the month of February, 2004 with the proposal to import asafetida (Heeng) and rolling scrap in the name of NAFED from Tazikistan/Kyrgystan and was advanced a sum of Rs. 10 Crores for this purpose. A Memo of Understanding dated 20th September, 2004 was executed.

(3.) IT was submitted that the summoning order dated 26th April, 2006 was a non -speaking and mechanical order which was passed without application of mind by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Magistrate, for short). The summoning order placed on record is not cyclostyled. It is a computer print -out which is also partly hand written. The first line of the order states that the Magistrate had heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and had perused the affidavit of the complainant filed on record. It records that the complaint was well within the period of limitation. It states that the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that prima facie there was sufficient evidence and grounds to summon the accused. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date of hearing, the date for which notice was issued and the name of counsel were filled up by hand and this proves and establishes that a pre -written or composed computer print -out was filled up and notice has been issued. The said contention is merely a presumption. Petitioner has not placed on record any other order passed by the same Magistrate in a different case wherein the same alleged pre -written/pre -composed computer printout was used. I have already quoted above the language of the order. Merely because the dates and presence of the counsel are hand written, it does not show that the order dated 26th April, 2006 was pre -dictated/composed order which was filled -up and the summoning/cognizance order was passed mechanically without examining the allegations in the complaint and the pre -summoning evidence.