SUMAN GAGAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

(2.) BY means of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2321 of 2003, Jitendra Virmani v. Suman Gagat, pending in the court of J.M. Ist, Dehradun Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act).

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below erred in summoning the petitioner. I do not find any force in this argument. In the present case, the cheque was issued on 17.8.2003 and it was deposited in the bank for payment and on 1.9.2003 it was dishonored with the endorsement having "insufficient funds". Thereafter, the notice was issued by the respondent through his advocate to the petitioner on 17.9.2003, which was also duly served upon the petitioner. However, even then the payment was not made to the respondent and ultimately on 21.10.2003, the complaint was filed by the complainant in the court. As such, the requirement of Section 138 has been made without their being any inordinate delay. Therefore, the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Act prima facie made out against the petitioner at this stage.