AMJAD ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to the cognizance order dated 22.05.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in criminal case no. 3232 of 2008 titled as 'State Vs. Amjad Ali' wherein chargesheet was filed against Amjad Ali (applicant) for the offence under Section 420, 506 IPC on 28.12.2007. A prayer has also been made to quash the said chargesheet.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that Harsh Goel (respondent no. 2) moved an application on 08.10.2007 with the narration that he drew a cheque from his Banker viz. Punjab National Bank, Jwalapur, Haridwar but the same was lost on 10.04.2007. The information of its missing was extended to Bank on the next day i.e. on 11.04.2007. Least the said cheque may not be misused, hence, respondent no. 2 left instructions to the Bank for making stop payment, if anyone comes for encashment of the same. When respondent no. 2 went to Bank on 07.09.2007, he came to know that some unknown person has strived to withdraw the money from his Account after presenting the said cheque but the same was bounced, as per his instructions and on account of 'insufficiency of funds' but somehow, respondent no. 2 could 2 know that the applicant had committed this mischief. On the application moved by respondent no. 2, an FIR was registered on 28.10.2007, which culminated into submission of chargesheet against the applicant, as stated above.

(3.) On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of applicant that this cheque was issued by respondent no. 2 genuinely in order to make payment due to applicant but the same was bounced by the Bank, so a notice, as envisaged under Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity "the Act"), was issued by him on 11.09.2007. When this notice could not yield any result, then he filed a complaint no. 1015 of 2007 against respondent no. 2 under Section 138 of the Act wherein cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 03.10.2007 against respondent no. 2 and asked him to stand trial. Thereafter, a petition was filed by respondent no. 2 seeking to quash the said order of cognizance but this Court did not find it proper to interfere in the proceedings initiated by applicant and consequently, dismissed the same.