KUSP ELECTRONICS R LTD. Vs. SIPLA ELECTROMEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, "Cr.P.C") read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the summoning order dated 22-01-2005 issued, pursuant to a complaint [Comp. Case No.699-C/09 (Old No.266/1/2005)] filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE brief facts as per the petition, are as under: Petitioner no. 1 (Kusp Electronics P. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "petitioner company") had placed an order to the respondent for supply of computer hardware accessories and parts, which were duly supplied by the respondent. The petitioner company thereafter issued a cheque bearing no.219280 dated 19.11.2004 for Rs. 88285/- to the respondent. However, the said cheque was dishonoured upon presentation and about which the respondent duly informed the petitioner company. In lieu of the cheque amount, the petitioner company returned certain computer hardware and accessories and stated that they were worth Rs.88285/- i.e. equivalent to the cheque amount, as the full and final settlement of all dues. Respondent however, addressed a letter to the petitioner company stating therein that the said goods/articles sent by the petitioner company were worth only Rs.60,000/- to 65,000/- and that the petitioner company should settle the accounts. Thereafter the respondent issued a legal notice dated 24.12.2004 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and claimed the balance amount of Rs.25,000/-. Since as per the respondent, the petitioner had failed to make the requisite payment within the stipu- lated time period of fifteen days, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Finding prima facie merit in the contention of the respondent, and on the basis of which, learned trial court vide order dated 22.01.2005, issued summons to the petitioner.

(3.) IT is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that it is the respondent who has cheated the petitioner inasmuch as, the respondent has failed to return the dishonoured cheque, which the respondent had assured to return to the petitioners. The respondent with ulterior motives and malafide intention has filed a false case against the petitioner in order to extort money.