VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in criminal complaint case no. 494 of 1996. Petitioner was the authorized dealer of car manufacturing company M/s. Sipani automobiles Limited and the complainant Sri Satish Kumar had booked a montana car on 5. 6. 1989 and paid the advance as was stipulated. Later on due to some manufacturing defect and the vehicle being not upto the mark, the automobile unit was closed down. Meanwhile the complainant. had cancelled his booking and pursuant to this, a cheque of Rs. 14,000. 00 was issued in favour of the complainant by the manufacturing company M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. When the cheque was presented to the drawee bank for clearance, the same could not be encashed for want of requisite fund in the account of the said company. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint alleging commission for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act as well as under section 420 of the I. PC. for the cheating committed by the company and his authorized dealer, the petitioner. On the complaint, the cognizance was taken on 6. 2. 1997 for offence punishable under section 420 of the I. PC. and 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and since then the petitioner has not put in appearance in the criminal case despite steps taken to ensure his attendance.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is not made out against the authorized dealer because the cheque which was dishonoured was not issued by him. However, it cannot be denied that if by inducement, the complainant was made to book a vehicle which was not upto the mark and was made to part payment of the money, the element for cheating by the manufacturing company as well as its authorized dealer is prima facie established from the facts and considering this, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offence under section 420 of the I. PC. also against the petitioner, the authorized dealer. The complaint and the order of the cognizance make out a cognizable case against the petitioner which is manifestly supported by the legal evidence as is evident from the admitted facts mentioned above. Considering this, the petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.