SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. SUNIL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 16.01.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in Criminal Complaint Case No.1192 of 2009 titled as Sunil Verma vs. Satya Narayan Sharma, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court.

(2.) A criminal complaint case was filed by respondent -Sunil Verma against the accused -applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After recording of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. coupled with the filing of the documentary evidence, accused person was summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, vide impugned order dated 16.01.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused -applicant.

(3.) IT was stated by the complainant in his complaint that accused Satya Narayan Sharma (applicant herein) has taken jewellery of Rs.1.94 Lakhs on 25.11.2008 and, in lieu thereof, he handed over a cheque of the same amount to the complainant. When the said cheque was presented in the bank, the bank informed the respondent that the account number was not correct and the said cheque was dishonoured due to 'insufficiency of funds'. The bank returned the unpaid cheque to the respondent on 29.10.2009. Respondent gave a registered notice dated 11.11.2009 to the applicant through his counsel, but inspite of the service of notice upon the applicant, the accused (applicant herein) did not pay him the money. Respondent placed original cheque, computerized copy of the notice, receipts of postal authorities, receipt of the depositing the cheque in the bank, etc., which shows that the legal requirements of Section 138 of the Act were complied with. The court below has appropriately dealt with the same in the impugned order. Having found a prima facie case to proceed against the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the accused applicant was summoned by the court below to face the trial. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order. There is no reason to interfere in the same in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.