PIYUSH KUMAR PAPPU Vs. MUKESH KUMAR BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner with the following prayers:

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that learned Sessions Court erred in recognising that the learned MM committed gross illegality in taking the cognizance of the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in summoning the petitioner on the basis of the said complaint filed by the respondent relying upon the cheque in question. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Court failed to consider that the learned MM ignored the contents of the said complaint and documents placed on record with the said complaint filed by the respondent under Sec. 138 N.I. Act and further have exceeded his jurisdiction by wrongly relying upon the allegations in the complaint, documents annexed and issued summons to the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Court erred in passing the impugned order dtd. 20/3/2023 by observing that the revision petition is barred by limitation despite there being no delay. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Court overlooked and ignored the contents of the delay application filed by the petitioner along with the revision petition which clearly stated that the said application is filed only by way of abundant precaution even though there was no delay in filing the revision petition. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Court ignored the order dtd. 10/2/2023 passed by learned MM which specifically states that the copy of the complaint along with its documents was provided to the complainant on 10/2/2023 itself and the summoning order dtd. 19/7/2022 could not have been challenged without the Petitioner knowing the contents/allegations levelled against the Petitioner in the said complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Ld. Sessions Court erred to consider that the Ld. MM in issuing summoning order dtd. 19/7/2022 against the Petitioner/ Accused has wrongly presumed that the cheque issued is in discharge of liability towards the friendly loan of Rs.38,76,000.00 given in cash by the respondent/complainant to the petitioner/accused and there is no evidence placed on record to support the same to make it legally enforceable.