LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-4

DHANJIT SINGH NANDA Vs. STATE

Decided On February 09, 2009
DHANJIT SINGH NANDA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, Petitioner seeks quashing of summoning order dated 29. 01. 2005 and criminal complaint bearing no. 95/1/2004 pending in the Court of Metropolitan magistrate Patiala House New Delhi, filed by the respondent u/s 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act 1881 hereinafter referred to as (NI Act), against the petitioner on account of dishonoring of the cheque issued by the petitioner, for which payment was not made despite service of the notice within the stipulated time. The complaint was filed within the time prescribed. The petitioner caused appearance in response to the issuance of summons on 02. 05. 2005. This petition has been filed on 24. 01. 2009.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order lacks application of mind as the summoning order dated 29. 01. 2005 is a stereotyped-one and has been issued in a cyclostyled format. It is also his case that the complaint has been filed in respect of a debt which is not legally enforceable and that the complaint is even otherwise not maintainable as the respondents were not competent are registered under Section 4 of the Punjab Registration of moneylenders Act and thus were not entitled to initiate the proceedings in the nature of recovery of the amount so lent by them as alleged. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his aforesaid submissions; i) Ravinder Goel and Anr Vs. State and Anr 2007 (1) JCC 465 ii) D. A. Mehta and Ors. Vs. The Regional Director E. S. I. Corporation reported in 1991 (3) CRIMES 72, (iii) Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in 1998 SCC (Crl.) 1400, iv) G. Pankajakshmi Amma and Ors Vs. mathai Mathew (Dead) through LRS and Anr reported in (2004) 12 Supreme court Cases 83; And (v) Krishnam Raju Finances Vs. Abida Sultana and Ors 2004 (2) JCC (NI) 130.

(3.) ARGUMENTS were heard on the question of admissibility of such a petition the petitioner in addition to oral submission, also filed a written note.