MOHD. IBRAHIM KURAISHI Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I propose to dispose of above referred petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the same parties involving similar question of law and facts.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are that the Respondent filed two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act') against the Petitioner, claiming that the Petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs from the Respondent No. 2 for purchasing the land. He issued two cheques, one being cheque No. 302131 dated 30.01.2008 for Rs.2,10,500/ -and other being cheque No. 302135 dated 14.06.2008 for Rs.23,360/ -both drawn on State Bank of India, Jwalaheri for repayment of aforesaid loan. The said cheques, on presentation, were returned back dishonoured with the remarks "insufficiency of funds". This led to issue of notice under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the Petitioner, calling upon him to pay the amounts of respective cheques within 15 days of receipt of respective demand notices. The Petitioner failed to make the payment of the amount of either of those two cheques despite of notice of demand. This led to the filing of two separate complaints in respect of those cheques.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the respective complaints which are similarly worded but for the details of the cheques and dates of presentation of respective cheques as also the dates of return memos and the dates of the respective demand notices. It is submitted that on reading of the complaints, it would be seen that there is No. specific allegation in the complaints that the demand notices were served on the Petitioner or that the Petitioner has failed to make payment of the demanded amount within 15 days of service of demand notices. Learned Counsel contended that from the above, it is apparent that essential ingredient of offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is lacking in the averment made in the complaints. Accordingly, the complaints are liable to be quashed as, prima facie, commission of offence is not disclosed.