RITU RAJ KHANNA Vs. ANAND SINGH ASWAL

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 summoning order dated 09.07.2008, further proceedings of the Crl. Complaint Case No. 2349 of 2008 (new No. 3773/08),Naveen Gupta v. Ritu Raj Khanna, Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act) pending in the court of Addl. C.J.M. -I, Dehradun as well as to quash the judgment and order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge/FTC -II, Dehradun in Crl. Revision No. 61/09,Ritu Raj Khanna v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.,.

(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 05.3.2008 and it was deposited in the bank for payment and on 10.03.2008 it was returned by the bank with the endorsement "account freeze by the bank". Thereafter, the notice was issued by the respondent through his advocate to the petitioner on 13.3.2008, which was also duly served upon the petitioner. However, even then the payment was not made to the respondent and ultimately on 09.04.2008, the complaint was filed by the complainant in the court. After appreciating the entire material on record, the trial court summoned the petitioner Under Section 138 of the Act on 9.7.2008, against which the petitioner preferred a revision, which too was dismissed by the revisional court. After analyzing the entire documentary evidence, I find that the requirement of Section 138 has been made without their being any inordinate delay. Prima facie, the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Act is made out against the petitioner at this stage.