NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. VINOD KUMAR KASHYAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The applicant, by means of present Application under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.658 of 2009 titled as Vinod Kumar Vs. Narender Kumar and another under Sections 380, 411, 467, 468, 471 and 504 I.P.C. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court.

(2.) The complainant/respondent filed a criminal complaint case against 2 accused persons, including the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411, 120-B, 420, 504, 506, 467, 468 and 471 Penal Code in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The complainant/respondent entered into the witness-box under Sec. 200 Crimial P.C. Satya Prakash CW1 and Preet Kamal CW2 were examined under Sec. 202 Crimial P.C. Documentary evidence was also filed on behalf of the complainant. After considering the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Crimial P.C. and the documentary evidence on record, the present applicant was summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411, 467, 468, 471 and 504 I.P.C., vide order dated 18.06.2009. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. was moved on behalf of accused-applicant.

(3.) The respondent alleged, among other things, that since he had to give his cheque-book to the financier to enable him to finance a tempo, therefore, he appended his signatures on the blank cheques, which were stolen away by the accused-applicant. Respondent further alleged that he did not see the accused-applicant committing theft of his cheque book. He came to know of the same through his acquaintance, namely, Preet Kamal. When the respondent went to the shop of the accused-applicant, he hurled abuses at the respondent. It is admitted by respondent/complainant in para 6 of the complaint that the present applicant instituted a criminal case against him under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).