TRILOCHAN BANGA Vs. RAJESH KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against an order dated November 23, 1982 of Shri T.D. Keshav, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing the sammoning of the present petitioners in respect of commission of an offence punishable under Section 409 and 120-B Indian Penal Code The summoning was made on the complaint of Shri Rajesh Khanna, a partner of M/s. Saral Trading Co. and also of M/s. Serhoo Mal Jagdish Rai, 2433, Ghhippiwara, Delhi.

(2.) At the relevant time petitioner No. I Ms. Trilochan Banga was branch manager of Union Bank of India, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and Shri S.K. Kataria, petitioner No. 2 was Superintendent Vigilance Union Bank of India, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The firms of Rajesh Khanna, respondent No. 1, were having some accounts current as well as cash credit etc. in Sunder Nagar branch of Union Bank of India.

(3.) The complaint is quite lengthy one In the complaint certain allegations have been made.as to how petitioner No.1 had grown inimical to the complaint, respondent No. 1, and as to bow there were some defamatory statements made by him. But those allegations are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petiton The real question in respect of which cognizance was taken by the learned magistrate relates to 20th February 1982. On that date, the complainant wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 23,000.00 from his current account in the Sunder Nagar branch of Union Bank of India. His allegations, as contained in the complaint, arc as follows. He gave cheque for Rs. 23,000.00 to his representative Mr. R.K. Seth. That was a self cheque drawn by the complainant. On presentation of the said cheque, a token was given to Mr. Seth by the clerk concerned as per the procedure and the amount of the cheque was debited in the current account. Thereafter the said cheque wassent to the branch manager, petitioner No. 1. She took the token from Mr. Seth and refused the payment of the cheque on the ground that there were huge outstandings from the complainant (respondent No. I in this case). The net result was that the cheque was dishonoured and Mr. Seth went away.