H D GUMBER Vs. ASHOK SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of criminal complaint being CC No. 10261/2003 and the summoning orders dated 28.7.2003, 22.11.2003, 01.04.2004, 29.10.2004, 01.06.2005, 14.9.2005, 03.12.2008, 09.04.2010, 19.05.2010, 20.07.2010, 13.08.2010 and order dated 27.01.2011, whereby notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed against the petitioner by the learned M.M. in above mentioned complaint case filed by the respondent under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the "N.I.Act").

(2.) The complaint case was registered at the instance of the respondent wherein it was alleged that the petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25000/- at 2.5% interest in August, 2002 from the respondent/complainant as a friendly loan. It was alleged that a cheque bearing No. 052104 dated 23.11.2002 for the above mentioned amount drawn on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Rohtak was issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant. It was further alleged that the cheque was presented by the complainant to its banker on 10.04.2003 but the same was returned unpaid with the remarks exceeds arrangements". It was further stated that on assurance given by the petitioner, the respondent presented the said cheque again on 23.05.2003 but it was returned unpaid. After sending the demand notice which was received by the petitioner, the complaint case was filed by the respondent, wherein the petitioner was summoned and notice was framed against him. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned summoning orders and notice framed under Section 251 CrPC on the short ground that the cheque was presented by the respondent after the expiry of the statutory period of six months for the presentation of the cheque in the bank on which it was drawn by the drawer. Reliance has been placed on Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., 2001 3 SCC 609. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was presented by the respondent/complainant with mala fide intention as the petitioner had already repaid the loan amount to him in the month of November, 2002.